Login with username and password (forgot your password?)

Microsoft is trying really hard to destroy itself. I have always developed software for Windows and this really bothers me, because if they go down, they probably take me with them.

Windows 8 (its walled Metro apps) was a big attack on software developers and I still feel betrayed by Microsoft. If I was deciding what OS to develop for now, I will not be Windows. No amount of Blue is going to change that unless Microsoft reevaluates its goals.

You should probably drop the C (put to current folder) - it has no effect when I (overwrite originals) is used (and can actually slow things down if the software is on different drive than the images).

Chroma subsampling controls the resolution of the color planes (Cb, Cr) relative to the brightness plane (Y). 4:1:1 (1 color sample for 2x2 pixels) is the default for PhotoResize as well.

Hard to guess where the <1% difference in file size comes from.

You are right, the 'skip smaller' option does not make sense in this case (the final image dimensions do not change and so the tool skipped all files, because they had the correct dimensions). If you want smaller file sizes, change the number at the end - instead of Q85, try Q75 or even smaller numbers and run the tests. That number controls the compression quality, the lower the number, the smaller file sizes and lower quality.

Have you actually tried mine? Mentioned right in the second post? 'cause it DOES what you say you need and did from the beginning. So, is there any special reason why you refuse to try it? I am really curious...

Perhaps we are concentrating too much on the present. The difference between the Adobe cloud solution and the classic boxed program is not so big now, but it may increase in the future. The subscription model will actually enable Adobe to be more flexible and lower development costs.

For example, they do not need to worry too much about backward compatibility, because paying users always have the latest version. New PSD files may be saved in compatibility mode so that they can be open in older Photoshops. Since there will not be older Photoshops (that matter) in a few years, backward compatibility won't be an issue for Adobe anymore.

A cloud solution also allows Adobe to be closer to the customers. Users will not have an option to not upgrade anymore and they will be forced to learn new things (and get feedback to Adobe). This may seem like a bad thing, but it is not. A community of users, who are frozen and refuse to learn anything new, is a big obstacle of innovation and is probably holding Adobe back right now.

A cloud solution has its benefits, especially when you are working on the same project from multiple devices or when multiple people must cooperate. But a cloud owned and managed by one company is no real cloud in my eyes. I am still waiting for the right cloud solution to emerge. A proper cloud should be distributed, kind of like freenet, but also fast. There should be multiple independent service providers selling disk space to backup and speed up access to your stored data. Setting up such a service should be a matter of installing an open source package on a computer with good internet connectivity. Data should be cached on end-user computers and the caching should be intelligent enough to predict what data the user would likely need next and download it from the cloud in advance. The cloud should work even if the connection to the whole internet is severed and only connections to local computers remain. If the data is on any of the local computers, it should be accessible.

When someone builds such cloud, I'll be a happy user and I'll integrate direct access to that could into all my software. No current solution comes close, not Dropbox, not Google Drive, not Adobe's cloud. They'll all become obsolete if/when this clouds becomes reality.

Well, let's hope that this move of Adobe will make the photo-retouching and image-editing segment less monotonous. It should be easier for Adobe competitors to convince people to switch when they can argue with saved money. Up until now, it was almost impossible to convince a Photoshop owner to switch, because he or she has already invested hundreds of dollars into Photoshop and switching meant more expenses. So, 

Adobe likely realizes this, but they are either very self-confident or they see other benefits this change may bring them. Like lock-in in their cloud or much lower maintenance expenses. It must be a nightmare to support multiple versions of their software. After the switch, everyone is either using the latest version (or can be told to upgrade to fix a problem) or they are not a paying customer and not eligible to receive support.

... and being able to open/save vectors in a format that is acceptable for professional use ...

I assume you mean .pdf or .ps ? Or am I wrong?

Not sure how seriously you were actually asking. But in case that was not sarcasm, then the answer is yes. Tucows is probably the worst of them as they only offer links to the crapware. Softonic's big download buttons lead to crapware, but they also have a much smaller links to the original sources. CNET does the same as Softonic, but if the software developer asks them, they will block the crapware for the developer's software titles. A slight improvement, but most of the software titles are still dangerous.

Download servers are not worth it for software developers anymore. I do not submit my new or updated software to any download servers (except portablefreeware.com) and I am considering stopping updating the PAD files. It is just not worth it. New software developers without established web site may even shoot themselves in the foot by adding their software to a big download site. A title on cnet's download.com may actually outrank the developers own web site in Google and who would a user, who just downloaded a crapware, blame? CNET or the actual developer?

Both of these examples are horrible. When I have a chance to look at someone's computer, I almost always spot a malware/spyware installed there. And this includes people, who more or less know their way around computers. I find myself apologizing for the state the computer industry is in. 

Recently, I checked my software on the most well known download sites and about half of them are letting users download malware instead of the actual software. Some of them even have videos full of BS about how great their downloader is. I tried to send the download sites emails with my objections, but not with a big success. TUCOWS removed my apps from their site (OK with me), softonic refused to do anything, CNET blocked the downloader for my software (this is old news). No response from the other offenders.

Hi guys,

I have a problem, I cannot design a good control for numeric input and I need your help. Look at these concepts I have drawn - they suck.
The classic Windows controls are marked by 0, possible alternatives are marked 1, 2, 3, 4.

[attach=#]

My goal is to have a widget for numeric input that:
1. works with keyboard - at least as good as the "classic" edit box with spinner
2. works with mouse - quickly adjust value by dragging something/clicking somewhere; ideally, it should be possible to somehow specify "good" numbers like 100, 10, 5, etc. with mouse (imagine doing that with a normal slider - it is not trivial to select exactly "30" if your slider goes from 1 to 100)
3. works with touch input - areas that need to be touched must not be tiny
4. looks good - good presentation of current value, simple design without too many distracting or eye-hurting details

My question: Do you know a program with a great widget for numeric input?

Thanks for all opinions.

Step in the right direction, but I am still not completely satisfied. Technology that deals with with data on this level cannot be closed. They need to open the protocol or better yet make the whole project open source and then it will be a hit.

It is always nice to see when one's software is worth a blog post  If a DC'er is behind this, they have my thanks.

Interesting way of gathering links while their site is not yet built. I am not sure if I admire it or despise it.

Well, that is surprising. Thanks for the feedback, if the error returns please, let me know.

The AppData looks fine.

The middle part of the of the window, where the canvas is, is actually re-created each time you switch layer and there are 2 different "editors" that just happen to look the same (one implemented in RWViewImageRaster.dll, the other one in RWViewImageVector.dll - it is all very plug-in-ny). That placeholder message you see means that either the configuration is wrong (not likely, since it worked here) or creating the editor subwindow failed for some reason and the placeholder window was created instead of a hard crash.

If you not totally annoyed by the software yet, please try downloading this http://download.rw-design...3.1/RWViewImageVector.dll , replacing the original file and then creating a vector image. It should display a series of message boxes with numbers. Then please tell me the last number you saw - it may help me locate where the window creation fails.

Thanks, fenixproductions! Though, I have bad news - the package worked fine and I saw no missing layout on both my Win7 and on a clean WinXP in VirtualBox. Probably some sneaky bug that only manifests itself under special conditions. Are you using any applications that affect other software?

Oh, I thought you were using the installer. In case of portable version (I assume you unpacked it to a new, empty folder), I have no idea why it should not work. Maybe it was somehow damaged during download? Using WinXP is fine, it should work on anything from Win2k up. Could you zip the folder with the not-working version and send it to me to info@rw-designer.com ? I'd love to check it out on my PC. Thanks.

That really looks like something from the older version is still in %APPDATA%\RealWorld\RWPaint\PlugIns - you sure the folder is empty?

If you see that, it may be due to an error. If you have had a previous version installed and if it downloaded some updates, they may be interfering with the new version. I am going to fix that (I do not know how yet), but for now, deleting everything in %APPDATA%\RealWorld\RWPaint\PlugIns and eventually resetting the layouts (CTRL+SHIFT during start) should fix it. (Also using the portable version solves the problem.)

I wanted to make a sibling of the Shape, called Stroke, but decided to postpone it for the next version. The plan is for it to be very much like Shape when it gets to GUI. Simple Lines and Curves would be convertible to Strokes, just like Rectangles, Ellipses, Polygons and Texts are convertible to Shapes.

The Shape also has some hidden extras - there are context menu commands, various ones depending on what kind of control point you click and actual shape of the Shape.

I'll also take rgdot's opinion into account when designing future GUI changes. Who knows what will be the end result ;-).

Thanks for the feedback. I will be working on more videos as the current ones are for the older versions, but my microphone has abandoned me again. I can't get a good microphone. This one was decent (on a USB headset), but stopped working properly and now is extremely noisy .

The Lines and Curves are working differently than in most other editors. I believe, stateless GUI is better for beginners and so the Line and Curve have only one state. When you create a Line, it has 3 points - two on the ends and 1 (greenish) in the middle. If you drag the middle point, new vertex is added. Similarly with the Curve.

I admit that the classic click-click-click-ESC way is faster when an experienced user creates a new line, but newbies have problems with it - they do not know that they have to somehow end the line (ESC, right click, ...?), changing a placed point or splitting an edge may be difficult, as it may involve choosing a different tool or re-configuring the current one. Though apparently, my approach confuses people, who have used other editors. I may adjust it or put some hits somewhere.

BTW for the Shape, the greenish points have similar function - they allow you to split an arc (without affecting a shape) and create a new control handle (point) at the desired location.

Don't forget to verify that the i7 CPU is the 3rd generation (Ivy Bridge). It uses less power(=less heat), is a bit faster and has better graphics.

BTW the graphics is on the CPU, so there is no dedicated VRAM if you use it and you are paying for it in both cases. The AMD Radeon is an extra chip that is then used instead of the graphics part of the CPU. If you are not a big gamer, the integrated graphics on the latest CPU is good enough and there are less things that can break in your notebook. If you intend to play a lot of games on it, get the Dell.

Ooops, what I meant by "Sticking with smaller tools" was that individual software developers should create much smaller and specialized tools than RWPaint already is.

Thanks mouser. I often feel foolish working on it, knowing that Adobe is in the same segment ;-). Sticking with smaller tools is definitely a smarter choice, but I am too stubborn to give up.

...and thanks for the donation!