Why all the fuzz about MS Paint – Just use Paint Dot NET

Exactly that feature on p19! And what a nice manual. Those B/W pixel patterns are so pretty.

I wish there was a way to run those old programs. I once managed to get KidPix in B/W to run on an emulator but somehow it stopped working. I always felt that MSPaint was to pixels what Vi is to text. (Photoshop/Paint.NET/Gimp are more like Word)

Why has noone made clones of those old paint programs? (Maybe I ought to stop whining, and just do it myself. That manual is a great reference, though.)

MSPaint does actually have transparency (at least the XP version has)! The "secondary color" desides which color is to be transparent, if you move stuff and have transparency enabled (in the "selection" options). So it's even sort of possible to emulate layers by having multiple MSPaints open.

It's kind of a Debian/Ubuntu issue, but it is kind of heavy having to install 150 MBs of desktop environment (with database server, wtf?!) to use a paint program. Kind of difficult to compile from scratch too ( the ./configure file seems to be missing in their SVN repo). But looks really cool on the video :-)

Before anyone runs off and grabs Pixelmator, see if Preview.app can do what you need. If you just need to highlight something in an image or add a note, it can do that.

If you need more, grab Pixelmator. It's an excellent program for basic image manipulation and drawing. If you need professional level tools, grab Paint Tool SAI, Photoshop, or GIMP as you need. Pixelmator will not be a good replacement for this programs.

I wouldn't say it is obvious. The ads you got when you took your screenshots weren't the most confusing that show up. Here is what I got on the site: http://imgur.com/a/WvFd6

First impression for me of the page is that the content is on the left, and the ads are on the right. That's because the part I have circled in red looks like Google-style text ads. My mental ad blocker filters them out.

The download button I have circled in yellow then sets off alarms. It's in what I have decided is an ad column, and the color reminds me a bit of the deceptive download ads CNET's download.com likes to use on their site to trick people into downloading the wrong thing.

I return to the left column, which I have identified as the content column. The download button there, which I have circled in green, is in a place where a download button would not be unexpected. This is the one I will probably click, unless the small, greyed out, notice that it is an add for "Free Zip" somehow catches my attention.

If instead of trying to download from the front page, I click the download link at the top, we get to the second page. What I'd do there depends on how tall my browser window is. If it is tall enough to show the real download section at the bottom, my attention would be drawn to that, because it looks enough like download sections at other places (because of the layout, and because it lists versions, sizes, and mirrors).

However, if that ends up not visible, then I'd probably click the ad I have circled in green. This ad fits right into the flow of the content and is a place where a download link for paint.net would make sense.

I think pages can be classified into "consumption" pages and "activity" pages. A consumption page is a page where the reader is there to consume the content of the page. For example, a product page at an online store would be a consumption page. The reader is there to read the information about the product. The front page of the paint.net site is a consumption page.

An activity page is a page where you are there to perform some activity. At an online store, the checkout page would be an activity page. At the paint.net site, the download page would be an activity page.

Third party ads on consumption pages can be fine. People on consumption pages are often just looking, and ads give a chance to get some money from such visits. When people get to activity pages, they have usually gone beyond the just looking stage. You've got them on the hook, and now you want to reel them in. There should be no outside temptations or distractions put up at that point.

Sites like this need to be called-out and shitlisted.

You can complain to Google here about their AdWords policies:

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/176378?hl=en&ref_t...

or use the following command line for expedited service:

  >> cat complaint.txt >> /dev/null

As an advertiser, you have very limited options for controlling the ads. If you try to manage them one by one, you'll be playing whackamole for forever. Probably the most effective method is disallowing all ads for software on your pages (via the Ad Review Center interface, handy picture available here: http://www.seobook.com/images/google-get-rich-quick.png), but if you're a software company, that a) denies legitimate advertisers the ability to put ads on your page and b) will result in you making very, very little revenue.

Should someone next blog about the Sick, Sad State of Blogs with broken images? ;)

Which shows me a page with a big green DOWNLOAD button, which is actually an ad...

The download links are below the fold somewhere.

I don't care about the website, it's the application that matters :)

> GIMP is great for editing photos, but a poor choice for creating bitmap (non vector) graphics. It's a big hassle even just to draw a straight line in GIMP. MS Paint is the reverse - easy for graphics, ill-suited for photos.

What? Photos are bitmap graphics and Gimp has nothing to do with vector graphics. You're really confusing a lot.

To draw a straight line in Gimp you just hold shift.

GIMP is not for creating Vector graphics, though you can have vector elements through bezier curves. Inkscape, however is created for this exact purpose.

I've used mtpaint before, it works well for what it's for.

original link: http://usersnap.com/blog/de-paint-ize-world-efficient-happie...