Hi,
I'd like to point out that startup speed is also dependent on what
resources you have installed. With lots of brushes or patterns,
startup time can be significantly inflated ( I have a set of 900
brushes that inflate startup times from 6sec - 35sec).
So you should make sure that you test with
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 22:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It takes about 10 seconds to start it for the first time on my
machine, later it's up in about 4 seconds. About a quarter of this
time is spent starting script-fu.
Yeah. Script-Fu and the data files (brushes, gradients, ...) are
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Starting GIMP takes about three to five seconds.
It takes ~7 sec on my 4 years old laptop (running Linux, a top model
at the time of buying) and ~20 (or more) second on my old workstation
(Windows) at work. While I agree with you on the tips
sending this again:
Sven wrote:
Anyway, this is something that the UI team should specify. I hope that
we will get some more input from Peter on this soon.
after being drowned in work, I have time in the next days to
wrap up this spec.
writing a GIMP blog entry right now
--ps
Sven wrote:
Anyway, this is something that the UI team should specify. I hope that
we will get some more input from Peter on this soon.
after being drowned in work, I have time in the next days to
wrap up this spec.
writing a GIMP blog entry right now
--ps
founder + principal
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 18:21 -0200, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
I'm afraid that this no image window sounds more and more like the
photoshop-esque gray background window that everybody have been asking
for all these years.
We aren't talking about an extra window here. Please don't call it
Hi,
On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 18:43 +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
It takes ~7 sec on my 4 years old laptop (running Linux, a top model
at the time of buying) and ~20 (or more) second on my old workstation
(Windows) at work. While I agree with you on the tips thing, I think
it's worth
On Monday, March 10, 2008, 20:18:30, Sven Neumann wrote:
If it is so much slower on Windows, why hasn't anyone profiled the
startup phase on Windows and pointed out where this time is spent?
It takes about 10 seconds to start it for the first time on my
machine, later it's up in about 4
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
If it is so much slower on Windows, why hasn't anyone profiled the
startup phase on Windows and pointed out where this time is spent?
If I'm pointed to a profiling tool for Win and docs, I could try to do it ;-)
(Considering this initial
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 08:47:14 +0100, Laxminarayan Kamath
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 6:26 AM :
Right-click : remove toolbar for those who find it superfluous
a small [x] button on top right of the toolbar might be better.
Most
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 20:48 -0500, Rick Yorgason wrote:
Has anybody come to a consensus about whether or not the no-image dialog
should persist after an image is opened?
This idea is new to me. The whole point is to represent GIMP if there's
no image, right? So it's not even a dialog, but
Bill Skaggs wrote:
To keep the ball rolling, I thought it might be useful to show a
copy of my current experimental version of a no-image-open
window.
Hello
First of all, it's great that someone is working on and looking into how
to best fix most aching UI problems GIMP has.
But what you
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 20:48 -0500, Rick Yorgason wrote:
I understand that people want to find a way to show tips in an
unobtrusive way, but maybe we can take a hint (no pun intended) from
video games here: the loading screen would be a great place for tips,
since the user has nothing
Hi,
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 13:37 -0800, Bill Skaggs wrote:
1) The toolbar shows most of the things a user might want to
do with no image open, but not quite all. Aquire, or Open as
layers, could be added, or even Create, which would access
the menu for creating buttons, logos etc. About
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Martin Nordholts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what you currently have seems to be very far from the spec [1].
Is this intentional or have you just not been able to steer your
current work into the direction of the spec? Just asking since it
would be sad if
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 5:21 AM, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resorting the menus is something that we should avoid to do
again. And I don't think that the current menu is too wide. Just
make the image window wider. A typical application window
nowadays takes 2/3 of the screen width
On Saturday 08 March 2008 19:49:48 Bill Skaggs wrote:
After discussing these things with Enselic on IRC, I've come to
realize that the most basic question is what we expect the user
to do with this window.
My two cents: nether wasking space on screen or behind other windows
cluttering the
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 09:49 -0800, Bill Skaggs wrote:
After discussing these things with Enselic on IRC, I've come to
realize that the most basic question is what we expect the user
to do with this window. If we expect the user to mainly keep it
minimized, and only bring it up when
Hi,
I should probably add that of course the toolbox and probably another
dock window will also be open. So there is really no point in making
this a small window. It should be large enough to serve as the parent
window for all palette windows that the user configured for GIMP. A lot
of users
I'm afraid that this no image window sounds more and more like the
photoshop-esque gray background window that everybody have been asking
for all these years.
The idea of keeping it, even when there is an image open, seems to back
that up. It will end up as a maximizable window and all the
To keep the ball rolling, I thought it might be useful to show a
copy of my current experimental version of a no-image-open
window. Most features should be obvious from the picture, but
a couple of notes:
1) The toolbar shows most of the things a user might want to
do with no image open, but not
A couple thoughts:
Has anybody come to a consensus about whether or not the no-image dialog
should persist after an image is opened? Even for expert users, it
might be useful to keep the no-image dialog open as a drop-target for
opening more images, but I can also see how it would annoy some
Has anybody come to a consensus about whether or not the no-image dialog
should persist after an image is opened?
Actually, yes, the mere fact that it is called a no-image window means that
a consensus has been reached. Your points are reasonable, but when there
are several reasonable
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:02:40 +0100, William Skaggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also for what it's worth, I've been a bit worried about including a
toolbar
like the one I showed, precisely because users who find it useful would
want to have it available even after an image has been opened.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 6:26 AM :
Right-click : remove toolbar for those who find it superfluous
a small [x] button on top right of the toolbar might be better.
Most people are used to Right click == context menu behaviour. The
toolbar disappearing
25 matches
Mail list logo
