I just installed Mandrake 10.0 Beta1. Is there a possibility to get Gimp2 into the 10.0 release that is planned for mid February 2004 ?

Best Regards Thomas J Spuhler

All Tusonix outgoing e-mail has been scanned for viruses

hi Marc,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:29:52PM -0500, Marc Dver wrote:

Can someone recommend ways of speeding up Gimp on a WinXP Pro machine? I'm using GTK+ 2.0 and the stable version of Gimp (the development version won't install on my machine because it has a AMD K6-2 450 processor). When I use the bucket tool, it takes a fw minutes before it fills, during which it freezes. It never crashes, but takes a while to perform the operation.

depending on the size of the image, your computer will only be able to do so much. My friend had some of the same issues with Photoshop, btw.

if you are working on a reasonable size image, i think that TheGIMP will render the effect quicker doing things its way with reasonably the same number of keystrokes as photoshop.

you ask TheGIMP to do what a corporation cannot.

carol

On Friday 23 January 2004 14:29, Marc Dver wrote:

Can someone recommend ways of speeding up Gimp on a WinXP Pro machine? I'm using GTK+ 2.0 and the stable version of Gimp (the development version won't install on my machine because it has a AMD K6-2 450 processor). When I use the bucket tool, it takes a fw minutes before it fills, during which it freezes. It never crashes, but takes a while to perform the operation.

That sounds like you are out of memory and using the swap to me. I've had it occur here with half a gig of ram. How much ram to you have?

Sincerely,
Marc DVer
_______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:16:13PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

if you are working on a reasonable size image, i think that TheGIMP will render the effect quicker doing things its way with reasonably the same number of keystrokes as photoshop.

Some performance issues seem not to have anything to do with the size of the file being worked on and should be fast, whether the workpiece is large or small, irrespective of the memory available. For instance when I invoke File|Save As under Linux I immediately get the file chooser dialog. When I do the same under Windows it takes perhaps 2 or 3 seconds for the file chooser to open.

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:04:37AM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:16:13PM -0800, Carol Spears wrote:

if you are working on a reasonable size image, i think that TheGIMP will render the effect quicker doing things its way with reasonably the same number of keystrokes as photoshop.

Some performance issues seem not to have anything to do with the size of the file being worked on and should be fast, whether the workpiece is large or small, irrespective of the memory available. For instance when I invoke File|Save As under Linux I immediately get the file chooser dialog. When I do the same under Windows it takes perhaps 2 or 3 seconds for the file chooser to open.

TheGIMP -- being built on linux and the defaults set for the excellent way that linux handles all the different little memory devises that these computers have -- might need for you to consider your resources while setting TheGIMP up. More than you are used to thinking about.

A document has been carefully hidden on mmmaybe.gimp.org that should help you to figure out what your computer is doing. This document also described accurately how to keep adobe photoshop from eating up outlook express ability, if this is an issue you have as well. How nice for the gimp development team to provide such instructions for the operating system you paid for (one way or another), windows. I am curious if Microsoft tech support could help you with your GIMP installation. It runs fine on my computer; and I am usually running on windows users outdated equipment. ie, your trash thanks to windows.

for $600 i will make the image on linux for you faster than photoshop makes it on windows. A second image a mere $150. I will throw in the memory management documentation for your other apps for free.

http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

i warn you, even simplified, computer memory management is a difficult concept. There is a good chance that the developers would like you not to read carefully through this so they can keep their jobs.

i can guarrentee that they will not reach out and tweak it for you. they are unhappy with the way they needed to make your gui run stable as it is.

good luck,
carol

ps

s/linux/gnu\/linux/g as if this matters, i was gnu and gpl from birth i think.

me

Hi,

Gene Heskett writes:

On Friday 23 January 2004 14:29, Marc Dver wrote:

Can someone recommend ways of speeding up Gimp on a WinXP Pro machine? I'm using GTK+ 2.0 and the stable version of Gimp (the development version won't install on my machine because it has a AMD K6-2 450 processor). When I use the bucket tool, it takes a fw minutes before it fills, during which it freezes. It never crashes, but takes a while to perform the operation.

That sounds like you are out of memory and using the swap to me. I've had it occur here with half a gig of ram. How much ram to you have?

A very important question that should always be looked at when it comes to memory is: "What is your setting for the tile-cache size?". If you don't choose a reasonable value here, GIMP cannot make optimal use of the available memory.

Sven

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

TheGIMP -- being built on linux and the defaults set for the excellent way that linux handles all the different little memory devises that these computers have -- might need for you to consider your resources while setting TheGIMP up. More than you are used to thinking about.

A document has been carefully hidden on mmmaybe.gimp.org that should help you to figure out what your computer is doing. This document also described accurately how to keep adobe photoshop from eating up outlook express ability, if this is an issue you have as well. How nice for the gimp development team to provide such instructions for the operating system you paid for (one way or another), windows. I am curious if Microsoft tech support could help you with your GIMP installation. It runs fine on my computer; and I am usually running on windows users outdated equipment. ie, your trash thanks to windows.

for $600 i will make the image on linux for you faster than photoshop makes it on windows. A second image a mere $150. I will throw in the memory management documentation for your other apps for free.

http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

i warn you, even simplified, computer memory management is a difficult concept. There is a good chance that the developers would like you not to read carefully through this so they can keep their jobs.

i can guarrentee that they will not reach out and tweak it for you. they are unhappy with the way they needed to make your gui run stable as it is.

Please ignore Carol's ramblings. She is talking mainly bullshit here. Albeit the fact that she has a gimp.org email address she is not talking on the behalf of the GIMP developers. At least when she's in this particular mood.

Please don't get a wrong impression from Carol's reply. We are definitely interested to hear about your in your problems. Even though most GIMP developers are using some flavour of UNIX, we are still willing to make GIMP work well on the Win32 platform.

Sven

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:47:47PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

Please ignore Carol's ramblings. She is talking mainly bullshit here. Albeit the fact that she has a gimp.org email address she is not talking on the behalf of the GIMP developers. At least when she's in this particular mood.

Thanks Sven, I was about to reply to Carol about her message but I won't bother now. I must admit that when I first read it I did a double take and thought "WTF, does Adobe pay this woman?" I'm sure she is trying to be helpful in her own way but given the poison pen she writes with this may not be a good thing.

Please don't get a wrong impression from Carol's reply. We are definitely interested to hear about your in your problems. Even though most GIMP developers are using some flavour of UNIX, we are still willing to make GIMP work well on the Win32 platform.

I am not at all unhappy with GIMP's performance (using default settings) on Windows XP other than the fact that I have noticed a lag before the file chooser opens when using File|Save As. I am a developer myself and work on Windows, so I have GIMP on it for the odd occasions when I need to do something graphical at work. Because I don't use it much I haven't bothered trying to optimise it but I will try doing so to see what difference it makes.

My comment that I didn't think available memory would impact the time to open the file chooser for Save As, revolves around the way I do this in my own programs. I do no processing before displaying the file chooser and if the GIMP behaves the same there is no reason for there to be a lag. If however, some processing is done before displaying the dialog then some delay might be expected.

Regards.

Hi,

Steve Crane writes:

I am not at all unhappy with GIMP's performance (using default settings) on Windows XP other than the fact that I have noticed a lag before the file chooser opens when using File|Save As. I am a developer myself and work on Windows, so I have GIMP on it for the odd occasions when I need to do something graphical at work. Because I don't use it much I haven't bothered trying to optimise it but I will try doing so to see what difference it makes.

My comment that I didn't think available memory would impact the time to open the file chooser for Save As, revolves around the way I do this in my own programs. I do no processing before displaying the file chooser and if the GIMP behaves the same there is no reason for there to be a lag. If however, some processing is done before displaying the dialog then some delay might be expected.

I don't think GIMP does anything special before opening the file selector. It might be the file selector itself that causes the delay. Do you observe similar problems with other file selectors (for example when exporting a path or loading curves presets)?

Sven

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 04:31:51PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

I don't think GIMP does anything special before opening the file selector. It might be the file selector itself that causes the delay. Do you observe similar problems with other file selectors (for example when exporting a path or loading curves presets)?

I've never really noticed. I'll try tomorrow at the office and let you know. Here at home I'm running GIMP on Linux as it should be.

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 04:57:56PM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:47:47PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

Please ignore Carol's ramblings. She is talking mainly bullshit here. Albeit the fact that she has a gimp.org email address she is not talking on the behalf of the GIMP developers. At least when she's in this particular mood.

Thanks Sven, I was about to reply to Carol about her message but I won't bother now. I must admit that when I first read it I did a double take and thought "WTF, does Adobe pay this woman?" I'm sure she is trying to be helpful in her own way but given the poison pen she writes with this may not be a good thing.

i watched my friend wonder why photoshop was interfering with Outlook Express. I did not want to learn about Windows but I was interested in her projects. She looked it up in a book. I watched this. Her explanation was the same as this document i showed later in this email. i would like her not to have these problems either, she was doing work for a really good organization, in my opinion.

how does one become qualified to know such things about computers?

Please don't get a wrong impression from Carol's reply. We are definitely interested to hear about your in your problems. Even though most GIMP developers are using some flavour of UNIX, we are still willing to make GIMP work well on the Win32 platform.

I am not at all unhappy with GIMP's performance (using default settings) on Windows XP other than the fact that I have noticed a lag before the file chooser opens when using File|Save As. I am a developer myself and work on Windows, so I have GIMP on it for the odd occasions when I need to do something graphical at work. Because I don't use it much I haven't bothered trying to optimise it but I will try doing so to see what difference it makes.

i was actually able to race gimp-1.2 with photoshop 5 on two computers, although most of the racing was done with gimp-1.0. gimp-1.0 ran slower than photoshop5. the gimp-1.0 was being run on a 486 that had a 42M harddrive and two ram chips that would fit into the hewitt packard computer that was purchased in 1992. i do not have access to the machine right now. photoshop le was being run on the computer that i use now.

my friends husband had to upgrade twice, they kept the first computer that replaced this one for the kids, and bought who knows what to make windows and photoshop work together. this is a 455 something and has made my cool cpu-monitors useless.

she uses default settings and had several problems with new software. i believe you are all making your livings not telling girls how to do simple little things like memory management. it is your fault i had to figure out my computer and watch her figure out hers.

photoshop and gimp are disturbingly the same, in my opinion. just that gimp can do more with less. the reason for the similarity is that they both use computers to work on pixels. i think photoshop sets its defaults for apple hardware. so photoshop has many of the same issues as gimp does when people want to use one piece of software on another computer operating system.

My comment that I didn't think available memory would impact the time to open the file chooser for Save As, revolves around the way I do this in my own programs. I do no processing before displaying the file chooser and if the GIMP behaves the same there is no reason for there to be a lag. If however, some processing is done before displaying the dialog then some delay might be expected.

how any application functions has everything to do with the memory management. there are things on your computer that the gimp cannot fix. it can provide for you information on how to fix it however.

with the information i gave you, you can fix it yourself or hire someone to fix it or do what i do and wait patiently for things to fix themselves.

carol

good morning,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 12:54:19PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Gene Heskett writes:

On Friday 23 January 2004 14:29, Marc Dver wrote:

Can someone recommend ways of speeding up Gimp on a WinXP Pro machine? I'm using GTK+ 2.0 and the stable version of Gimp (the development version won't install on my machine because it has a AMD K6-2 450 processor). When I use the bucket tool, it takes a fw minutes before it fills, during which it freezes. It never crashes, but takes a while to perform the operation.

That sounds like you are out of memory and using the swap to me. I've had it occur here with half a gig of ram. How much ram to you have?

A very important question that should always be looked at when it comes to memory is: "What is your setting for the tile-cache size?". If you don't choose a reasonable value here, GIMP cannot make optimal use of the available memory.

GSR from this mail list wrote an excellent document on how to set the tile cache size:
http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

the weird thing is, while it was written for linux, it seems to work for any computer i have had the luxury to use or observe.

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

GSR from this mail list wrote an excellent document on how to set the tile cache size:
http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

the weird thing is, while it was written for linux, it seems to work for any computer i have had the luxury to use or observe.

I don't think there's anything OS specific about this HOWTO. Of course there are always some subtle differences but since the GIMP tile-cache code is the same on Win32 as on UNIX, of course the HOWTO applies to Win32 as well. Why is it located in the unix section?

Sven

hi Sven,
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:45:26PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

GSR from this mail list wrote an excellent document on how to set the tile cache size:
http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

the weird thing is, while it was written for linux, it seems to work for any computer i have had the luxury to use or observe.

I don't think there's anything OS specific about this HOWTO. Of course there are always some subtle differences but since the GIMP tile-cache code is the same on Win32 as on UNIX, of course the HOWTO applies to Win32 as well. Why is it located in the unix section?

i was more worried about the linux people when i requested that the document be authored. i figured it was something that the linux/unix developers left open because they all knew they needed different settings for these values, depending on what you are doing -- which is the way they write things.

at the same time, i assumed that operating systems that you buy or steal or have automatically installed on the computer that you purchased would have the time, money and inclination to set this for you. like many assumptions, this was wrong. my assumption was that there were no problems with expensive corporation backed software. my assumption discovered the corporation backend? i will not assume this.

instead, the next site will make a universal howto section that branchs when necessary into operating systems; either for language or for actual computer differences. as they are discovered. if there are any differences. no more assumptions.

even based on an assumption, i errored on the side of caution. i assume i will keep doing this ....

carol

Sven Neumann wrote:

I don't think GIMP does anything special before opening the file selector. It might be the file selector itself that causes the delay. Do you observe similar problems with other file selectors (for example when exporting a path or loading curves presets)?

You're probably right as other file selectors are the same. It takes about 2 seconds before the selector opens. Changing the tile cache size appears not to affect this. Not a big issue really, just something I had noticed. This might even not be present in later versions. As I said I only use GIMP occasionally on this machine so I haven't bothered to upgrade from version 1.2.3.

Cheers.
--
Steve Crane
http://craniac.afraid.org

Hi,

craniac writes:

You're probably right as other file selectors are the same. It takes about 2 seconds before the selector opens. Changing the tile cache size appears not to affect this. Not a big issue really, just something I had noticed. This might even not be present in later versions. As I said I only use GIMP occasionally on this machine so I haven't bothered to upgrade from version 1.2.3.

I guess you are using some slow network shares then. If at all this would have to be addressed at the GTK+ level but I don't think it makes sense to worry about the GTK+-1.2 file selector. You should perhaps check if the new file chooser widget in GTK+ HEAD shows the same problem.

Sven