Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paint.net

getpaint.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Paint.net

#81

Post by [deleted] »

jokoon wrote: post #70
FredPret wrote: post #56

Paint.net is the one thing I missed when I switched from Windows to Mac when M1 came out. It's a brilliant quick photo editor. People say to use Pinta on Mac but it's not the same. The closest I've found is Pixelmator Pro, which is also awesome, but is not free and quite a bit heavier than Paint.net.

yes, and it's the same for foobar2000 some software can't be replaced and don't have good enough alternatives, and prevent me from switch to linux windows is getting worse, but not bad enough to justify me switching to linux, exactly because of those softwares it's odd in a way, because the free software for windows is generally higher in quality that the one I find on linux. And Gimp will never replace paint.net. In…

[deleted]

Re: Paint.net

#82

Post by mjfisher »

jokoon wrote: post #70
FredPret wrote: post #56

Paint.net is the one thing I missed when I switched from Windows to Mac when M1 came out. It's a brilliant quick photo editor. People say to use Pinta on Mac but it's not the same. The closest I've found is Pixelmator Pro, which is also awesome, but is not free and quite a bit heavier than Paint.net.

yes, and it's the same for foobar2000 some software can't be replaced and don't have good enough alternatives, and prevent me from switch to linux windows is getting worse, but not bad enough to justify me switching to linux, exactly because of those softwares it's odd in a way, because the free software for windows is generally higher in quality that the one I find on linux. And Gimp will never replace paint.net. In…

I'd agree with Gimp - it's UI makes several departures from other similar software.

But Inkscape's UI seems pretty intuitive?

Re: Paint.net

#83

Post by infinitezest »

moffkalast wrote: post #38
sinuhe69 wrote: post #37

Oh yes. I found Paint.Net and used it for many years as a quick photo editing solution. It's lightweight, reasonably fast and sophisticated enough for most daily tasks. However, I find I no longer install it on my new Windows boxes because of Photopea. Photopea is kind of a Photoshop Express clone and runs entirely in the browser. It's amazing how fast and easy photo editing software can be. WASM is really amazing st…

Hmm yes "It seems like you're blocking our ads" is exactly the kind of popup I want from an image editor, lol.

Its always amazing to me how, even on a site inhabited almost exclusively by people that make a living writing software, people get so offended by the idea of paying for software. As long as software does not have lock-in and is offered for a reasonable price, I'm very happy to pay someone for their time and ingenuity.

Re: Paint.net

#84

Post by Aardwolf »

Disappointing to see that they still didn't port it to other platforms after all these years. I thought that should be easy to do since .net is multiplatform.

I can't say I understand the strategy, there are enough painting programs for Windows (which they even seem to focus on extra much on the frontpage of the website too) yet they are donation based but exclude other platforms.

Re: Paint.net

#85

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

Aardwolf wrote: post #84

Disappointing to see that they still didn't port it to other platforms after all these years. I thought that should be easy to do since .net is multiplatform. I can't say I understand the strategy, there are enough painting programs for Windows (which they even seem to focus on extra much on the frontpage of the website too) yet they are donation based but exclude other platforms.

It uses a bunch of p/invoke native calls and other Windows specific features.

Re: Paint.net

#86

Post by Sharlin »

mjfisher wrote: post #82
jokoon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, and it's the same for foobar2000 some software can't be replaced and don't have good enough alternatives, and prevent me from switch to linux windows is getting worse, but not bad enough to justify me switching to linux, exactly because of those softwares it's odd in a way, because the free software for windows is generally higher in quality that the one I find on linux. And Gimp will never replace paint.net. In…

I'd agree with Gimp - it's UI makes several departures from other similar software. But Inkscape's UI seems pretty intuitive?

Inkscape certainly has some idiosyncracies in its UI, but yeah, for the most part it's very reasonable and mostly adheres to common UI/UX conventions. Not sure how much it deviates from, say, Illustrator, as I haven't used the latter.

Re: Paint.net

#87

Post by reddalo »

m_fayer wrote: post #55
_zamorano_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, Paint.NET hits the right complexity spot. Offers basic functionality, that allows the user to easily achieve most goals. It's not intended as a Photoshop replacement (GIMP tries to) or a professional tool. But most other users will find that what they're trying to achieve is straightforward compared to other options.

It’s the notepad++ of graphic editors. Another great remnant of Windows-based poweruser culture from a different time.

I completely agree. It has those power-user vibes that many modern software lacks.

Re: Paint.net

#88

Post by BeFlatXIII »

jokoon wrote: post #70
FredPret wrote: post #56

Paint.net is the one thing I missed when I switched from Windows to Mac when M1 came out. It's a brilliant quick photo editor. People say to use Pinta on Mac but it's not the same. The closest I've found is Pixelmator Pro, which is also awesome, but is not free and quite a bit heavier than Paint.net.

yes, and it's the same for foobar2000 some software can't be replaced and don't have good enough alternatives, and prevent me from switch to linux windows is getting worse, but not bad enough to justify me switching to linux, exactly because of those softwares it's odd in a way, because the free software for windows is generally higher in quality that the one I find on linux. And Gimp will never replace paint.net. In…

I agree that Paint.NET and Foobar2k are the two things I miss when I moved away from Windows. Amarok is a nice iTunes replacement for Linux, but it's no Foobar.

Re: Paint.net

#89

Post by kqcso »

blackoil wrote: post #30

It is one of few softwares, I believe MSFT should simply sponsor and promote, maybe make it opensource. It is a perfect application, Windows only built in dotnet, loved by users and has a perfect positioning.

If you are looking for nice Windows-only open source photo editor with lots of Paint and Photoshop-like features, I recommend PhotoDemon:

https://photodemon.org/

Re: Paint.net

#90

Post by ebertucc »

wsc981 wrote: post #80
FredPret wrote: post #56

Paint.net is the one thing I missed when I switched from Windows to Mac when M1 came out. It's a brilliant quick photo editor. People say to use Pinta on Mac but it's not the same. The closest I've found is Pixelmator Pro, which is also awesome, but is not free and quite a bit heavier than Paint.net.

I am not sure how it compares to recent versions of Paint.NET, but on my Apple desktop computer, I like to use Aseprite [0] (which is also not free). At the very least, Aseprite seems to have more features compared to the Paint.NET version that came with my Windows 10 installation ( I think ). It's more of a graphic program for game design, but still very good in my opinion. And multiplatform, so usable on Windows an…

Aseprite is free if you compile it yourself [0], and can still be used for commercial purposes if compiled this way [1]. But I recommend buying it anyway to support the project.

[0]: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/

[1]: https://www.aseprite.org/faq/#can-i-sell-graphics-created-wi...

Post reply on HN