Graphics/Paint for OS/2?
e-frog
original hand-drawn graphics. (Not like Colorworks or even Photo>Graphics,
which are better at image manipulation. I have both, they're great for
their jobs)
So far, no luck, but I did find this page for Photogenics:
http://www.paulnolan.com/news.html
It looks like an amazing program, but originally for the Amiga. Just now
porting to Linux. But look farther down the page:
"Internally, Photogenics is based on my Ng user interface toolkit, and
avoids calling any OS specific functions. Ng itself sits on top of a small OS
abstraction layer, which either maps directly to AmigaOS functions, or uses
Posix for thread related functions, and Xlib for display. With this
abstraction layer in place, Photogenics will soon become platform agnostic.
With 99.9% of the Photogenics source code remaining unchanged across
ports, no platform will get left behind when it comes to new
versions. An Amiga NG version should not be a problem, and QNX
aficionados will be pleased to know that Photogenics will port over with
only trivial changes...."
I'm sure that the OS/2 market must be bigger than the Amiga market!!!
He says that no platform will get left behind, whatever that means. And if
he's willing to port to QNX, surely he can do OS/2.
Is anyone else interested in such an application? If so, please do
(nicely) contact the author and let him know your interest!
Thanks,
Isaac
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>I've been looking for a real, good paint application for OS/2, for
>original hand-drawn graphics. (Not like Colorworks or even Photo>Graphics,
>which are better at image manipulation. I have both, they're great for
>their jobs)
Have you looked at Embellish?
It looks like it's a freebie now (their web site says that Dadaware has
closed their doors, which is sad -- Joe wrote good software [IMhO]).
>So far, no luck, but I did find this page for Photogenics:
> http://www.paulnolan.com/news.html
I agree that Photogenics looks like a VERY nice program.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Did you expect to find words of wisdom here?
e-frog
: Here in comp.os.os2.apps, isa...@sonics.ece.ubc.ca (e-frog)
: spake unto us, saying:
: >I've been looking for a real, good paint application for OS/2, for
: >original hand-drawn graphics. (Not like Colorworks or even Photo>Graphics,
: >which are better at image manipulation. I have both, they're great for
: >their jobs)
: Have you looked at Embellish?
: It looks like it's a freebie now (their web site says that Dadaware has
: closed their doors, which is sad -- Joe wrote good software [IMhO]).
Dang! That sucks! Another piece of good software stopped.
Yes, I did look at Embellish before, but not exactly what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for something in the line of DeluxePaint or Fauve Matisse.
Both very, very old programs.
Isaac
Mirage Media
installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands
Richard Steiner wrote:
>
> Here in comp.os.os2.apps, isa...@sonics.ece.ubc.ca (e-frog)
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >I've been looking for a real, good paint application for OS/2, for
> >original hand-drawn graphics. (Not like Colorworks or even Photo>Graphics,
> >which are better at image manipulation. I have both, they're great for
> >their jobs)
>
> Have you looked at Embellish?
>
> http://www.dadaware.com
>
> It looks like it's a freebie now (their web site says that Dadaware has
> closed their doors, which is sad -- Joe wrote good software [IMhO]).
>
cotr...@stny.rr.com
>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
It did fine for me.
Keith Cotroneo
cotr...@stny.rr.com
Luc Van Bogaert
>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
Yes, exact same problem here :-(
Luc Van Bogaert
Vice President - Warpstock
Visit www.warpstock.org for the most important OS/2 event of the year
Mirage Media
Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands
rb...@ibm.net
>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
Reinhardt Behm, Nauheim, Germany, rb...@ibm.net
Alex Bell
>In <3854522B...@iae.nl>, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl> writes:
>>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>>
I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
Regards, Alex
leto...@nospam.net
>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
I found the same thing. Epfiexts.dll tha tit installs is corrupt.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <leto...@sover.net>
Christian Hennecke
> I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
> in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
>
> I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
Should be no problem, since they belong to the IBM software installer
AFAIK.
Christian Hennecke
--
Keep passing the open windows! ("The Hotel New Hampshire", John Irving)
no...@praxcomm.com
>I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
>in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
I, too, have been unable to install Embellish, as I'm lacking those EPFI*.DLL files.
Would be kind enough to send them to me (and tell me where they should be
placed)?
Regards (and thanks),
Alan Thwaits
Digital Cycling
mailto: no...@praxcomm.com
http://www.praxcomm.com/
Buddy Donnelly
> In <3854522B...@iae.nl>, on 12/12/99
> at 08:55 PM, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl> said:
>
> >I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
> >installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
> >corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> I found the same thing. Epfiexts.dll tha tit installs is corrupt.
Or just keep c:\netscape\siutil; on your LIBPATH.
--
Good luck,
Buddy
Buddy Donnelly
donn...@tampabay.rr.com
Mirage Media
Thanks,
Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands
Alex Bell wrote:
>
> On 12 Dec 1999 21:55:30 GMT, rb...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >In <3854522B...@iae.nl>, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl> writes:
> >>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
> >>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
> >>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
> >>
> I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
> in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
>
> I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
>
> Regards, Alex
Luc Van Bogaert
>Alex Bell schrieb:
>> I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
>> in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
>>
>> I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
>
>Should be no problem, since they belong to the IBM software installer
>AFAIK.
Those dll's appear to be present in several locations on my drive (PMView, Netscpe, ...) So where do
we have to place those dll's when installing Embellish? I've tried copying them but to no avail...
Rogprov
>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
>
I had this problem and found a way around it.
I already had the demo version - EMBO202B.ZIP which I extracted into a
directory
I then extracted the files from the free non-crippled version - EMBOS2.ZIP and
copied over to the demo EMB.EX_ then ran the install from the modified demo and
all worked fine.
So, use the EMB.EX_ (15563) to replace the EMB.EX_ (22914) and run the demo
install.
Regards
Roger Provins
Gloucester
Buddy Donnelly
> How did you do it? Where did you placethe .dlls?
If you have Netscape 4.61 installed, the most current builds of all of
the DLLs that EPFINST needs are in the \NETSCAPE\SIUTIL directory.
Just add "netscape\siutil;" to the end of your LIBPATH, and reboot,
and you'll never have this kind of hitch again.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Corey
> Mirage Media
> Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>
> Alex Bell wrote:
> >
> > On 12 Dec 1999 21:55:30 GMT, rb...@ibm.net wrote:
> >
> > >In <3854522B...@iae.nl>, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl> writes:
> > >>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
> > >>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
> > >>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
> > >>
> > I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
> > in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
> >
> > I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
> >
> > Regards, Alex
Buddy Donnelly
<luc.vanbog...@pandora.be> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:10:54 +0100, Christian Hennecke wrote:
>
> >Alex Bell schrieb:
> >> I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
> >> in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
> >>
> >> I could send the dlls to you, if they are not copyright.
> >
> >Should be no problem, since they belong to the IBM software installer
> >AFAIK.
>
> Those dll's appear to be present in several locations on my drive (PMView, Netscpe, ...) So where do
> we have to place those dll's when installing Embellish? I've tried copying them but to no avail...
They can be on your LIBPATH, and must be if you don't have the entry
"." in your LIBPATH.
As I've said before, putting \NETSCAPE\SIUTIL on your LIBPATH will
solve this problem.
Luc Van Bogaert
>As I've said before, putting \NETSCAPE\SIUTIL on your LIBPATH will
>solve this problem.
You are right, it solved the problem. Thanks. I was just to eager to get this thing installed. Too bad that
this is yet another OS/2 application gone ...
I wonder how far the Netlabs have made progress with Gimp/2...
Doug Bissett
> I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
> installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
> corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>
> Corey
> Mirage Media
> Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
Installed last night. No problems, so far. Perhaps, you did not get a
complete download???
I don't really have a use for this program, but now that it is free, I
thought I might as well have a look. It does look rather interesting,
but I still don't have a real use for this program.
Too bad these companies can't make a go of it, but one does need to
produce a product that does have a lot of users. I think that there
were too many picture manipulation programs (mostly VERY good), but
there is a limited market for such a program (even in the WinXX
market). Perhaps, whatever is left will now have a chance, or (more
likely), they will go down too, since everybody will use one of the
free programs.
On the other hand, there is a high demand for a true OS/2 internet
browser (I don't count WebEx, because it is now ancient, and not
suitable for use with a LOT of web sites). The Netscape ports, while
mostly functional, don't even come close to exploiting the power of
OS/2, and most (all???) of the rest don't have 128 bit encryption (US
style). I am looking forward to the Mozilla, and the Opera, browsers,
but I suspect that both will be much the same as Netscape-> just
another inadequate windows port. I just hope that they will have 128
bit encryption, so I will have another choice. I have tried
StarOffice. It works pretty good, and does have 128 bit encryption,
but that does not work with my bank, so it has dropped out of the
running because of that.
Just my C$.03 ($.02 US)...
******************************
From the PC of Doug Bissett
doug.bissett at attglobal.net
The " at " must be changed to "@"
******************************
jnic...@tcia.net
at 04:08 PM, rog...@aol.com (Rogprov) said:
>In article <3854522B...@iae.nl>, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl>
>writes:
>>I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>>installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>>corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>>
>>
>I had this problem and found a way around it.
>I already had the demo version - EMBO202B.ZIP which I extracted into a
>directory
>I then extracted the files from the free non-crippled version -
>EMBOS2.ZIP and copied over to the demo EMB.EX_ then ran the install from
>the modified demo and all worked fine.
All you have to replace is one file from older files.
INSTALL.IN_ 610,210 and it install just fine.
Later,
Nick
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
jnic...@tcia.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wenham
<luc.vanbog...@pandora.be> wrote:
> I wonder how far the Netlabs have made progress with Gimp/2...
GIMP as ported to OS/2 is at version 1.1.11, which is about two minor
revisions behind the original version (1.1.13).
It runs usably well on OS/2, but there are problems with stability
that may be inherited from the original.
The documentation for it is dodgy, too. The help module hasn't been
ported yet and the manual updates are out-of-synch with the
development versions. This will make it hard to understand how to use
it.
I've also yet to see a consistant central download source for the
OS/2 port. Netlabs hasn't been updated with any version beyond 1.0 and
the most recent place I had to go for version 1.1.11 was at a GNOME
porting project page (http://birdy.hpage.net/).
GIMP is really the only piece of non-trivial graphics software of any
kind available to OS/2 that is still being maintained. But it wasn't
made for OS/2, it doesn't take advantage of anything unique about
OS/2, and it doesn't even run on the OS/2 desktop.
Regards,
Chris Wenham - edi...@os2ezine.com
The views expressed are mine.
Alex Bell
>How did you do it? Where did you placethe .dlls?
>
>Thanks,
>
I already had them in the PMView directory. I just copied them to another
directory which in the libpath. I think that if I had put the PMView
directory into the libpath that would have worked as well.
Regards, Alex
Alex Bell
>In <nsworyybayvaxarg...@news.onlink.net>, "Alex Bell" <afj...@onlink.net> writes:
>
>>I downloaded it, and found that it needed two epfi*.dlls. But as I had them
>>in the PMView directory I was able to complete installation.
>
>I, too, have been unable to install Embellish, as I'm lacking those EPFI*.DLL files.
>
>Would be kind enough to send them to me (and tell me where they should be
>placed)?
>
>
>Regards (and thanks),
>
>Alan Thwaits
>Digital Cycling
>mailto: no...@praxcomm.com
>http://www.praxcomm.com/
>
My posting has raised many responses, both here and in the Team OS/2 mailing
list. Rather than mail the dlls to everyone I'll try to put them up on one
of my websites, so that they can be downloaded from there. I'll keep you
posted.
On the other hand they may be already available somewhere on the web. Could
you do a search on them?
Regards, Alex
Alex Bell
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 02:13:32, leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> In <3854522B...@iae.nl>, on 12/12/99
>> at 08:55 PM, Mirage Media <mir...@iae.nl> said:
>>
>> >I just downloaded (from Dadaware)it and tried installing....no luck. The
>> >installation kept dying on one of the .dll's in Embellish. Seems to be
>> >corrupt. Has anyone else experienced this?
>>
>> I found the same thing. Epfiexts.dll tha tit installs is corrupt.
>
>Or just keep c:\netscape\siutil; on your LIBPATH.
>
>--
>
>Good luck,
>
>Buddy
>
>Buddy Donnelly
>donn...@tampabay.rr.com
>
>
Yes, that's a good idea. I remember now that when I searched my hard drive
for the dlls they were somewhere in Netscape as well as in PMView. Try
copying them to a directory which is in the libpath, and you should have no
problem installing Embellish.
Regards, Alex
gzi...@attglobal.net
it was a sense of history and sadness. Innoval and Joe View/Embellish
were some of the early pioneers. There, from my first IBM catalogue, onto
my first Indelible Blue catalogue, were these firms. My hat goes off to them
for exiting extremely gracefully. They gave up their commercial software
for free when they finally left the OS/2 realm.
It is extremely rare to see this kind of spirit in the modern day computing
world. Giving back to a community where they ultimately failed to 'make a
buck', and yet still giving back to that very community, even in their demise.
To me it shows a love and a commitment to a certain way of computing,
that I hope will never die.
Gail Zimmerman
gzi...@ibm.net
David T. Anderson
> It is extremely rare to see this kind of spirit in the modern day computing
> world. Giving back to a community where they ultimately failed to 'make a
> buck', and yet still giving back to that very community, even in their demise.
>
I second you there, Gail. JoeView was the second piece of OS/2
shareware I bought
[the first was PMMail] and I used it and its successor JViewPro until
very recently. Joe Berkeley and company were a great asset to the
OS/2 community and I'm very sorry they've pulled the plug. I hope
that anyone who downloads the now-free Embellish [I paid for mine!]
and finds it to be an excellent utility will feel a twinge of sadness,
if not guilt, for not supporting Dadaware when it was still in
operation...
David T. Anderson
Calgary, Alberta
Will Rose
Anyone know if there's a way to suppress the 10-second splash screen
on the (commercial) Embellish? I find it pretty irritating - does it
exist in the free version? Fortunately I managed to buy a second-hand
copy of JViewPro, which does exactly what I want, so Embellish is now
shelf-ware, but I'd like to get it going.
David T. Anderson
>>
> Anyone know if there's a way to suppress the 10-second splash screen
> on the (commercial) Embellish? I find it pretty irritating - does it
> exist in the free version? Fortunately I managed to buy a second-hand
> copy of JViewPro, which does exactly what I want, so Embellish is now
> shelf-ware, but I'd like to get it going.
Hi Will -- I can't find any way to suppress the splash screen...I
always thought it was an integral part of the program startup.
Anyway, it only lasts 5 seconds on _MY_ system [grin].
I'm glad you're still happy with JViewPro...
Bob McLellan
gzi...@attglobal.net wrote:
> I happened to be cleaning out a cabinet full of old OS/2 resources. For me
> it was a sense of history and sadness. Innoval and Joe View/Embellish
> were some of the early pioneers. There, from my first IBM catalogue, onto
> my first Indelible Blue catalogue, were these firms. My hat goes off to them
> for exiting extremely gracefully. They gave up their commercial software
> for free when they finally left the OS/2 realm.
>
> It is extremely rare to see this kind of spirit in the modern day computing
> world. Giving back to a community where they ultimately failed to 'make a
> buck', and yet still giving back to that very community, even in their demise.
>
> To me it shows a love and a commitment to a certain way of computing,
> that I hope will never die.
>
> Gail Zimmerman
> gzi...@ibm.net
I was sad to see that the author of Catch 22 died recently. I wonder if he would
appreciate the situation we may have in the software arena now.
Say I am the developer of a graphics program (eg True Spectra) and I find that the
business is not successful. As a parting gesture to my customer set I make the
product available at no charge. I had a competitor (eg Embellish) who was getting
along, who now finds that their sales plummet because they are competing against a
comparable product that is free. Net result of what is clearly a very nice gesture
- no graphics developers.
Now I don't know if the True Spectra demise led to Dadaware shutting up shop, but
it sure wouldn't have helped. What is the answer. Do you have to be insane to be
in software development?
--
------------------------------------------------------
Bob McLellan
The Little Blue Kiwi
OS/2 Solutions for New Zeland
Buddy Donnelly
>
> I was sad to see that the author of Catch 22 died recently. I wonder if he would
> appreciate the situation we may have in the software arena now.
> Say I am the developer of a graphics program (eg True Spectra) and I find that the
> business is not successful. As a parting gesture to my customer set I make the
> product available at no charge. I had a competitor (eg Embellish) who was getting
> along, who now finds that their sales plummet because they are competing against a
> comparable product that is free. Net result of what is clearly a very nice gesture
> - no graphics developers.
> Now I don't know if the True Spectra demise led to Dadaware shutting up shop, but
> it sure wouldn't have helped. What is the answer. Do you have to be insane to be
> in software development?
You're correct, it's not an area that seems to be a natural realm for
getting rich quick.
Historically, companies like IBM created their software as part of the
services they had already contracted to render, or included as part of
a proprietary hardware sale. But at the same time, there were *many*
programmers creating code for their own use, freely sharing it back
and forth to help each other get the specific job done. (In fact, any
programmer who was *not* generous with his work to his fellows, found
himself unable to get help with other bits of code he needed.)
The whole business of making software for profit is a new one, and
probably equivalent to making music for a living. People will copy
your records onto cassettes, trade them around, and blithely avoid
paying your record company, and you, so you'd better find another way,
as a musician does in concert touring, to make what you need to live
on.
Companies setting up factories to make computer software are risky
businesses of the highest order. They seem to be depending too much on
a very tricky mechanism, very new in concept and not yet fully
workable and tested, for enforcing an idea of a right to transfer
ownership of an intangible called "Intellectual Property". I'm not
sure the two terms belong together at all, even inside the same pair
of quotation marks. Part of software is Idea, part is Engineering, and
it's always been damned difficult to contain and control Ideas.
And I'll share that moment of silence on bended knee for our dearly
departed Joseph Heller, whose first exercise in creating intellectual
property kept me sane through an insane war. Yossarian Lives.
gzi...@attglobal.net
> I was sad to see that the author of Catch 22 died recently. I wonder if he would
>appreciate the situation we may have in the software arena now.
If he'd read John Soyring's DOJ testimony, at
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_testimony.htm, he
probably could have written a sequel. 'Catch 22/2' <wink>.
> Now I don't know if the True Spectra demise led to Dadaware shutting up shop, but
>it sure wouldn't have helped. What is the answer. Do you have to be insane to be
>in software development?
In hindsight, I'd say 'recoginition value' is one of the key things.
In the hey-day of heavy IBM promotion, OS/2 Warp got some
visibility in the press/retail stores. If that level of promotion still
existed today, I think you'd see OS/2 as a very viable market to
develop for in the SOHO market. Win alternatives are more popular now,
(for example the Linux variants) than they were in 1995.
I'd say it's more of a 'wrong time, wrong place' thing. It certainly has
nothing to do with the quality of OS/2 apps.
Gail Zimmerman
gzi...@ibm.net
cb...@my-deja.com
<jORXtcYCR8l4-p...@SPHERICALBURN.TAMPABAY.RR.COM>,
donn...@tampabay.rr.com (Buddy Donnelly) wrote:
[...]
>
> Historically, companies like IBM created their software as part of the
> services they had already contracted to render, or included as part of
> a proprietary hardware sale. But at the same time, there were *many*
> programmers creating code for their own use, freely sharing it back
> and forth to help each other get the specific job done. (In fact, any
> programmer who was *not* generous with his work to his fellows, found
> himself unable to get help with other bits of code he needed.)
>
> The whole business of making software for profit is a new one, and
> probably equivalent to making music for a living. People will copy
> your records onto cassettes, trade them around, and blithely avoid
> paying your record company, and you, so you'd better find another way,
> as a musician does in concert touring, to make what you need to live
> on.
>
> Companies setting up factories to make computer software are risky
> businesses of the highest order. They seem to be depending too much on
> a very tricky mechanism, very new in concept and not yet fully
> workable and tested, for enforcing an idea of a right to transfer
> ownership of an intangible called "Intellectual Property". I'm not
> sure the two terms belong together at all, even inside the same pair
> of quotation marks. Part of software is Idea, part is Engineering, and
> it's always been damned difficult to contain and control Ideas.
As a scientist who now dropped into the world of professional developing
(because informatics is more searched than science nowadays...) this is
a very interesting reasoning for me, because in a way science is in the
same position!
Some people say: "intellectual property" in the sense that it can be
bought and sold should not exist but ideas should be rather exchanged
freely at any time. Others will always ask: But what are
programmers/scientists supposed to live on?
There is another side: If this exchange does _not_ work, the community
_as a whole_ pays a very high price in that many things have to be
developed/found out many times because another one who already did it
doesn't want to hand it over so others can build on it! And this
obviously happens a lot in software industry!
I don't really know how to solve this problem, but I tend to like the
model how scientific results are handled that are paid for by the US NSF
or NASA etc.: There has to be enough interest in the question that
somebody pays for it in the first place, but then all results have to be
opened to the public for free, possibly after a "protection period"
which is rather short, something like 1 or 2 years.
In the informatics sector, we know companies that tend to sell
"services" or "solutions" (that may include some programming) and others
that depend on just selling "licenses": The first means being paid for
work that is actually done, the second is the way to get rich quickly if
you have the right product in the right moment - and to lose everything
if you don't! Would IBM and M$ be good examples for the two?? Maybe
still not 100%...(!?)
Greetings,
Cornelis Bockemühl <cbo...@datacomm.ch>
Author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
cb...@my-deja.com
Splash screens are just a nuisance in _any_ case and only make sense on
OS'ses where multitasking is virtually blocked while an application is
starting (which cannot be ours ;-)), so the user has something to look
at during that time!
When I start an internet session Netscape tends to be by far the slowest
program to load, so I can already read my mail or go into the usegroups
with other programs while it is starting - of course _only_ as long as
that stupid splash screen doesn't block the user interface!
Greetings,
Cornelis Bockemühl <cbo...@datacomm.ch>
Esko Kauppinen
>Splash screens are just a nuisance in _any_ case and only make sense on
>OS'ses where multitasking is virtually blocked while an application is
>starting (which cannot be ours ;-)), so the user has something to look
>at during that time!
>
>When I start an internet session Netscape tends to be by far the slowest
>program to load, so I can already read my mail or go into the usegroups
>with other programs while it is starting - of course _only_ as long as
>that stupid splash screen doesn't block the user interface!
I also see the splash screen max. 5 seconds out of which 3 seconds
the program window is already visible under the splash screen.
And I find the picture quite stylish and gives a professional look to
the program.
I use Object Desktop 2's virtual desktops to gain space.
I click Embellish to start in one desktop and click to another to
use e-mail, to third to use Win3.1 program etc.
Esko
Will Rose
: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:05:09, Will Rose <c...@cts.com> wrote:
:>>
:> Anyone know if there's a way to suppress the 10-second splash screen
:> on the (commercial) Embellish? I find it pretty irritating - does it
:> exist in the free version? Fortunately I managed to buy a second-hand
:> copy of JViewPro, which does exactly what I want, so Embellish is now
:> shelf-ware, but I'd like to get it going.
: Hi Will -- I can't find any way to suppress the splash screen...I
: always thought it was an integral part of the program startup.
: Anyway, it only lasts 5 seconds on _MY_ system [grin].
Interesting; it's so steady on 10 seconds I assumed it was a timer.
It must be some sort of cycle-count delay. I'm running it on a
486 DX-4.
: I'm glad you're still happy with JViewPro...
One of my better buys. I'm still cross that I delayed buying it until I
needed it; I should have known better. With OS/2 software you grab it
when you can.
butthead.utias.utoronto.ca
hobbes in:
/pub/os2/apps/graphics/imagepro/photo200.zip
Rambod Larijani
email:lari...@utias.utoronto.ca
In <WKzU4oHp...@visi.com>, rste...@visi.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
>Here in comp.os.os2.apps, isa...@sonics.ece.ubc.ca (e-frog)
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>>I've been looking for a real, good paint application for OS/2, for
>>original hand-drawn graphics. (Not like Colorworks or even Photo>Graphics,
>>which are better at image manipulation. I have both, they're great for
>>their jobs)
>
>Have you looked at Embellish?
>
> http://www.dadaware.com
>
>It looks like it's a freebie now (their web site says that Dadaware has
>closed their doors, which is sad -- Joe wrote good software [IMhO]).
>
>>So far, no luck, but I did find this page for Photogenics:
>> http://www.paulnolan.com/news.html
>
>I agree that Photogenics looks like a VERY nice program.
>
>--
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
> + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
> Did you expect to find words of wisdom here?
953182526@worldnet.att.net@www.worldnet.att.net
It's been quite a while since my last visit to an OS/2 newsgroup, but I simply could not get Embellish to install and on the off chance that there was something really obvious I might be overlooking (I *thought* the installation download was missing a couple of dlls), I checked here, and lo and behold, there was the answer. The dlls could be found elsewhere on my system. I did a search, found them in another directory, copied them over to the os2/dll subdirectory and that ended the installation problems. Thank you so much.
Karen
steve53_r...@earthlink.net
>: Hi Will -- I can't find any way to suppress the splash screen...I
>: always thought it was an integral part of the program startup.
>: Anyway, it only lasts 5 seconds on _MY_ system [grin].
>Interesting; it's so steady on 10 seconds I assumed it was a timer. It
>must be some sort of cycle-count delay. I'm running it on a 486 DX-4.
There are two types of slash screens:
- those that obey the Logo Time property in System Setup -> System
- those that are put up until the app is ready to interact with the user
I don't which type the Embellish splash screen is, but you might consider
checking the Logo setting.
Steven
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Levine <steve53r...@earthlink.net> MR2/ICE 2.02 #10183
Warp4/FP11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
steve53_r...@earthlink.net
>shop, but it sure wouldn't have helped. What is the answer. Do you have
>to be insane to be in software development?
No, you just have to understand the risks. The rule of thumb is 90% of
all business startups fail. Software companies are no exception. I don't
know the details of DadaWare's demise. However, they had a cross-platform
product in a crowded market. My guess is they had a difficult time
differentiating their product and getting visibility.
Frankly, I am amazed at how some software companies find enough sales
volume to manage to stay in business.
e-frog
no....wrong idea.
There are a lot of photo-manipulation and image processing applications.
Defunct Colorworks, Photo>Graphics, Embellish, SX Paint...yes, I even
heard about PhotoTiger, and there is always GIMP, which I have tried. (For
Windows, there's Photoshop)
There are even some pretty good vector based graphics stuff, like DrawIt,
or in a pinch, you could pull out Maul or Freelance, or StarOffice suite,
or even run CorelDraw 5 under WinOS2.
But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
lines of DeluxePaint II. Try it. It is HORRIBLE for image manipulation! No
layers, one undo, no objects, etc....
It is, however, great as a replacement canvas, for generating artwork from
SCRATCH (i.e. blank screen!)
For example, pick your favourite from the list above. Try doing a
still-life fruit scene in pastel. I don't even know how to start!
I haven't been able to find a suitable replacement for ANY platform
yet, until I stumbled across Photogenics, which appears to be what I'm
looking for. (Another close substitute is Fauve Matisse, which is also
discontinued since being bought out by Macromedia).
This looked very promising, because i) it serviced the Amiga market which
is presumably much smaller than the OS/2 market, ii) sold for a reasonable
$99 for what you're getting and iii) it is highly portable to new
platforms.
Isaac
butthead.utias.utoronto.ca@ wrote:
: Another nice graphics paint program for OS/2 is PhotoTiger. It is on
: hobbes in:
: /pub/os2/apps/graphics/imagepro/photo200.zip
: Rambod Larijani
: email:lari...@utias.utoronto.ca
: >
Will Rose
: In <83b8q7$13mc$1...@thoth.cts.com>, on 12/16/99
:>: Hi Will -- I can't find any way to suppress the splash screen...I
:>: always thought it was an integral part of the program startup.
:>: Anyway, it only lasts 5 seconds on _MY_ system [grin].
:>Interesting; it's so steady on 10 seconds I assumed it was a timer. It
:>must be some sort of cycle-count delay. I'm running it on a 486 DX-4.
: There are two types of slash screens:
: - those that obey the Logo Time property in System Setup -> System
: - those that are put up until the app is ready to interact with the user
: I don't which type the Embellish splash screen is, but you might consider
: checking the Logo setting.
Hadn't thought of that - I always set it to None, and it has no time
setting on my system. Possibly Embellish is using a default value.
I get the impression that the app is ready long before the screen clears.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
>lines of DeluxePaint II.
A program like that simply does not exist for OS/2.
Photogenics looks (to me, based on the description on the web site) to
be an Embellish functional superset which has a few more drawing tool
options (Embellish has some of the basics like chalk and spraypaint).
It'd be nice to see it ported, but I'd have to play with it a while
to get a feel for what it does that my existing ColorWorks/Embellish/
StarOffice combination doesn't already do before I could justify
shelling out $100 for it.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.
ric...@rainlore.demon.co.uk
Steiner) wrote:
>Here in comp.os.os2.apps, isa...@grizzlies.ece.ubc.ca (e-frog)
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
>>lines of DeluxePaint II.
>
>A program like that simply does not exist for OS/2.
>
>Photogenics looks (to me, based on the description on the web site) to
>be an Embellish functional superset which has a few more drawing tool
>options (Embellish has some of the basics like chalk and spraypaint).
>
>It'd be nice to see it ported, but I'd have to play with it a while
Photogenics? The "new" Amiga version is actually pretty poor, as it's
based on the V1.x code base. V2 really was getting very good indeed a
few years ago. The codebase for this however is still owned by the
former owners of the now defunct Almathera, and I really can't see
anybody in their right mind undertaking a port to OS/2 when the
commercial viability of horizontal apps is virtually zero on OS/2,
probably little better than on Amiga. :(
Ric
gzi...@attglobal.net
>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
>lines of DeluxePaint II. Try it. It is HORRIBLE for image manipulation! No
>layers, one undo, no objects, etc....
Heh, heh, DeluxePaint II. Outstanding program in it's time, and yes, I'll
agree, it takes 3 programs to do today, what that program can do. Email
me privately, if you are interested in their last, and final update to that
program, circa 1994. Oh, and by the way, it was written to run well under
MS OS/2. <wink>. Another aside, it was the program professional game
programmers used to render their graphics, up until 256 SVGA went out
of style.
The closest I have seen to DPaint II, is unfortuantely for you now, Colorworks.
All the others are 'Image manipulation' programs, not true 'paint' programs.
You can duplicate the functionality of DPaint II, with their masks, but I will
admit it takes a paradigm shift to do so. It is not as intuitive as Dpaint's
'brushes', but it can be done under Colorworks, albiet as a two step process.
Email me if you think I can possibly be of assistance to you.
Gail Zimmerman
gzi...@ibm.net
Alex Taylor
>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
>lines of DeluxePaint II. Try it. It is HORRIBLE for image manipulation! No
>layers, one undo, no objects, etc....
>SCRATCH (i.e. blank screen!)
>For example, pick your favourite from the list above. Try doing a
>still-life fruit scene in pastel. I don't even know how to start!
For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
--
Alex Taylor
al...@eddie.cis.uoguelph.ca
Tim Martin
> For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
> but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
>
> I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
> there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
> There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
PhotoTiger has just been updated for OS/2.
PhotoTiger is a program for editing digital photos and pictures.
PhotoTiger requires OS/2 Warp.
System requirements:
PC with OS/2 Warp 4
Graphics:
Required: 8 bit Color (16 bit recommended)
Required resolution 800*600 pixel (1280*1024 recommended)
Memory:
Required: 32MB RAM (64MB recommended)
And a lot of free swapspace on the harddisk.
CPU:
Required: 386 (586 recommended)
Features:
Supported bit depths:
1, 8, and 24 bits pictures. (8 bits mask)
Supported file formats:
BMP (1, 8, 24 bits)
JPEG (8, 24 bits)
IMG (1 bits)
PNG (1,8,24 bits)
PNM (1,8,24 bits, only loading)
Supported languages (program AND bubble help):
English and German
Supported tools and actions :
Brush, Stamp, Lines, Lasso, Flood Fill, Rotate, Mirror, Text, Gamma,
Mask Operations, Zoom, Scale, Scan, Print,
Brightness & Contrast, Convert, Add Border, Multipicture, Replace
Colors, User Defined Shortcuts, HSB-Support, ...
PhotoTiger 2.31 modifications and innovations:
Scanning
Complete new user interface for scanning pictures. It is now possible
to scan a preview picture and select therein an
area which should be scanned.
Rotate picture
Apart from the rotating pictures by manual input of an angle of
rotation, pictures can be rotated now also using the
mouse. A line can be set, which should represent the new horizontal of
the picture.
Gradation
Phototiger now offers the possibility for color level manipulation. In
the 'Actions' menu of the picture window you
can find a new menu entry 'Gradation... '. Select it to open the
'Gradation' dialog.
Filter
In the picture window menu 'Actions' you can find a new submenu
'Filter' with some pixel filters. These filters can be
applied with 24 bits color pictures or with 8 bits grey pictures. The
filters are based on a 3*3 or on a 5*5 matrix.
Beside the sharpening and smoothen filters there is still some more
filters, just use them to see the effects.
Print Pages
PhotoTiger now can do a multi page output to a printer. This is uesful
if you want to send more then one picture to a
fax.
Recent files
In the main window menu 'File' the 10 recently used files are listed.
If you want to open one of these files, select the
appropriate menu entry. The behavior of the 'Recent files' can be
controlled using a special dialog. Select menu
entry 'Recent files...' to open the dialog.
Create file icon
PhotoTiger can now create file icons for saved pictures. The file icon
is stored in the extended attributes of the file.
In the dialog 'File options', you can reach it in the main window manu
'Settings', can be set if a file icon should be
produced automatically on saving pictures. And you can set the size of
icon to be created.
Lasso, select all
Use menu entry 'Select all' which can be found in the picture window
menu 'Lasso', to create a lasso containing the
whole picture. A already existing lasso will be replaced.
Close all windows
Use menu entry 'Close All Windows' which can be found in the main
window menu 'Window', to close all picture
windows. All unsaved data will be lost.
The web site is located here:
http://www.phototiger.com/
Tim Martin
The OS/2 Guy
Warp City (http://warpcity.com)
"Y2K NEW Membership Discounts Now Available!"
e-frog
: Alex Taylor wrote:
: > For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
: > but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
: >
: > I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
: > there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
: > There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
: PhotoTiger has just been updated for OS/2.
: PhotoTiger is a program for editing digital photos and pictures.
: PhotoTiger requires OS/2 Warp.
Exactly my point! PhotoTiger is for "editing", i.e. for working on
existing pictures! Such programs are all over the place, no shortage of
those! In fact, I've looked for replacement over in the Windows camp and
still no luck :(
I can produce results with Colorworks, or PhotoGraphics, but the results
are very, well, rigid, cold, industrial? (Oh geez, and the effort
required...) Good for web graphics and icons and such, but there's more to
computer graphics than that!
I remember NeoN Grafix (www.neongrafix.com) had a paint program that was
pretty good, at least the right style like DeluxePaint. I talked to them
and they said they weren't going to add any features, so...
I guess if I'm mad enough about the situation, I should get off my ass and
program my own, eh?
Isaac
leto...@nospam.net
>believe there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images,
>anyway? There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
maybe they use a vector drawing programs and save the files as a bitmap?
_____________
Ed Letourneau <leto...@sover.net>
Tim Martin
> Tim Martin (OS2...@WarpCity.com) wrote:
> : Alex Taylor wrote:
>
> : > For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
> : > but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
>
> : > I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
> : > there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
> : > There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
>
> : PhotoTiger has just been updated for OS/2.
>
> Exactly my point! PhotoTiger is for "editing", i.e. for working on
> existing pictures! Such programs are all over the place, no shortage of
> those! In fact, I've looked for replacement over in the Windows camp and
> still no luck :(
>
> I can produce results with Colorworks, or PhotoGraphics, but the results
> are very, well, rigid, cold, industrial? (Oh geez, and the effort
> required...) Good for web graphics and icons and such, but there's more to
> computer graphics than that!
>
> I remember NeoN Grafix (www.neongrafix.com) had a paint program that was
> pretty good, at least the right style like DeluxePaint. I talked to them
> and they said they weren't going to add any features, so...
>
> I guess if I'm mad enough about the situation, I should get off my ass and
> program my own, eh?
>
> Isaac
The OS/2 Community would welcome such an endeavor
with applause and adulation. :-)
Tim Martin
The OS2/ Guy
Warp City (http://warpcity.com)
"Y2K NEW MEMBER Discounts Now Available!"
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
>there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
>There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
I use Embellish. That's why I paid for it in the first place (since I
already had ColorWorks for doling image effects). It has all of the
normal paint shapes (solid and outline tools for circle, oval, square,
rectangle, freeform open and closed polygons), customizable freehand
pencil, chalk, airbrush, floodfil, pattern stamps, etc.
Yes, Embellish has a lot of image effects as well, but that certainly
doesn't lessen its basic abilities as a paint program. It's a *lot*
better than Windows Paintbrush, IMhO. And native.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Monday is the root of all evil.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>I use Embellish. That's why I paid for it in the first place (since I
>already had ColorWorks for doling image effects). It has all of the
>normal paint shapes (solid and outline tools for circle, oval, square,
>rectangle, freeform open and closed polygons), customizable freehand
>pencil, chalk, airbrush, floodfil, pattern stamps, etc.
An additional note: the paint tools do not show up "by default" on the
main toolbar, which may be why some people appear to not recognize the
paint abilities of Embellish (it may not appear to be a classic paint
program at first glance).
You need to click on the "Tools" and "Paints" buttons to bring up those
two toolbars (or select them via the Window->Tools menu) to bring up
the tool palettes for painting. Also, you need to being up the Color
Chooser to select/capture colors. The toolbars can be fixed on any
margin or floating.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
No wanna work. Wanna bang on keyboard!
Alex Taylor
>>I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
>>there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
>>There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
>
>already had ColorWorks for doling image effects). It has all of the
>normal paint shapes (solid and outline tools for circle, oval, square,
>rectangle, freeform open and closed polygons), customizable freehand
>pencil, chalk, airbrush, floodfil, pattern stamps, etc.
Embellish is reasonably close... it just seems inefficient to use.
(For instance, I could only seem to have _one_ colour selected at a
time for painting. In DeluxePaint II, or PaintBrush, I can have a
foreground (left MB) and background (right MB), but in Embellish I
have to keep going back and selecting a new colour. There are
other inefficiencies too, but I haven't explored extensively.)
>Yes, Embellish has a lot of image effects as well, but that certainly
>doesn't lessen its basic abilities as a paint program. It's a *lot*
>better than Windows Paintbrush, IMhO. And native.
I tried Embellish briefly when it was payware; it seemed OK, but not close
enough to my needs to be worth buying, so I deleted it and kept using
PaintBrush. Now that it's free, I've DL'd it and will try it some more...
--
Alex Taylor
al...@eddie.cis.uoguelph.ca
Esko Kauppinen
>On 16 Dec 1999 21:00:51 GMT, e-frog <isa...@grizzlies.ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
>>lines of DeluxePaint II. Try it. It is HORRIBLE for image manipulation! No
>>layers, one undo, no objects, etc....
>>It is, however, great as a replacement canvas, for generating artwork from
>>SCRATCH (i.e. blank screen!)
>>For example, pick your favourite from the list above. Try doing a
>>still-life fruit scene in pastel. I don't even know how to start!
>
>For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
>but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
>
>I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
>there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
>There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
I use Embellish and think that it is pretty good. I must admit that at
first try
i found it very confusing, couldn't even find a way to make a line.
But after using it some time I realised the potential it has.
Esko
Jon Schuck
cooks. Converts bitmaps to vectors, screen capture, animation,
presentations, and on ...
leto...@nospam.net wrote:
> >I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't
> >believe there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images,
> >anyway? There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
>
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>Embellish is reasonably close... it just seems inefficient to use.
>(For instance, I could only seem to have _one_ colour selected at a
>time for painting. In DeluxePaint II, or PaintBrush, I can have a
>foreground (left MB) and background (right MB), but in Embellish I
>have to keep going back and selecting a new colour. There are
>other inefficiencies too, but I haven't explored extensively.)
True -- I find that I tend to use the Color Palette toolbar to save a
set of specific colors that I'm actively using, and the Color Bar
itself for one-shot things.
I also have another tool which I forgot to mention as I've not used it
in a while: MD+F SX Paint 1.7 from Modular Dreams, which I received as
a bundled utility with their Web Animation Kit. I guess the reverse is
true now. It still seems to be available here:
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
I forgot about that one. Can it still be purchased/registered?
Also, there's Blue Paint:
http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~pczarny/bpaint.html
but it's pretty basic.
Taking a different approach, how about a DOS program like NeoPaint?
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/simtelnet/msdos/graphics/neopt32a.zip
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
But are you a computer friendly user?
Wayne Bickell
:>On 21 Dec 1999 15:14:11 GMT, Alex Taylor wrote:
:>
:>>On 16 Dec 1999 21:00:51 GMT, e-frog <isa...@grizzlies.ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
:>>>But what I really, really want is a true graphics paint program along the
:>>>lines of DeluxePaint II. Try it. It is HORRIBLE for image manipulation! No
:>>>layers, one undo, no objects, etc....
:>>>It is, however, great as a replacement canvas, for generating artwork from
:>>>SCRATCH (i.e. blank screen!)
:>>>For example, pick your favourite from the list above. Try doing a
:>>>still-life fruit scene in pastel. I don't even know how to start!
:>>
:>>For creating bitmaps, I use Paintbrush under Win-OS/2. Horrible, I know,
:>>but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
:>>
:>>I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
:>>there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
:>>There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
:>
:> I use Embellish and think that it is pretty good. I must admit that at
:>first try
:> i found it very confusing, couldn't even find a way to make a line.
:>
:> But after using it some time I realised the potential it has.
:>
:> Esko
:>
:>
What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
Cheers
Wayne
******************************************************
Wayne Bickell
Tokyo, Japan
wa...@tkb.att.ne.jp
******************************************************
Posted with PMINews 2 for OS/2
Running on OS/2 Warp 4 (UK) + FixPak 9
******************************************************
cotr...@stny.rr.com
>Tim Martin (OS2...@WarpCity.com) wrote:
>: Alex Taylor wrote:
>
>: > but it does have most of the rudimentary functionality I need.
>: >
>: > I'm still looking for a "paint" program for OS/2, though. I can't believe
>: > there isn't one. What do people use to _create_ bitmap images, anyway?
>: > There's any number of tools for _manipulating_ them...
>
>
>: PhotoTiger requires OS/2 Warp.
>
>existing pictures! Such programs are all over the place, no shortage of
>those! In fact, I've looked for replacement over in the Windows camp and
>still no luck :(
>
>I can produce results with Colorworks, or PhotoGraphics, but the results
>are very, well, rigid, cold, industrial? (Oh geez, and the effort
>required...) Good for web graphics and icons and such, but there's more to
>computer graphics than that!
>
>I remember NeoN Grafix (www.neongrafix.com) had a paint program that was
>pretty good, at least the right style like DeluxePaint. I talked to them
>and they said they weren't going to add any features, so...
>
>I guess if I'm mad enough about the situation, I should get off my ass and
>program my own, eh?
>
>
>Isaac
I just found a copy of corel draw 2.5 for os/2. It is pretty old,
but pm based and seems to be very powerful. So far, I
am impressed.
Keith Cotroneo
cotr...@stny.rr.com
Wayne Bickell
:>>What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
:>
:>I forgot about that one. Can it still be purchased/registered?
I saw it still at BMT Micro or from the author's homepage:
http://www.worklab.com/Logoart/Logoart.html
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 23:06:05 -0600, Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>:>>What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
>:>
>:>I forgot about that one. Can it still be purchased/registered?
>
>I saw it still at BMT Micro or from the author's homepage:
>
>http://www.worklab.com/Logoart/Logoart.html
LogoArt is not at BMT Micro, and the URL above works but has no image
files at all and the online order link results in a 404 error.
That doesn't look good. :-(
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Never argue with a man carrying a water-buffalo.
Wayne Bickell
:>LogoArt is not at BMT Micro, and the URL above works but has no image
:>files at all and the online order link results in a 404 error.
:>
:>That doesn't look good. :-(
I did a search at BMT and followed the links for a secure
registration so I assumed it was still there.
I may have a copy on one of my backup tapes...
life...@xxvol.com
>An additional note: the paint tools do not show up "by default" on the
>main toolbar,
Is that why mine comes up with most of the buttons grayed out when I start
it? Actually not grayed out, just gray.
Jim L
Remove XX from address to Email
Crooks and kooks will get guns regardless of laws.
Chris Wenham
<wa...@SPAM.tkb.att.ne.jp> wrote:
> What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
LogoArt is a vector drawing program and FAR removed from painting.
A vector program, like LogoArt and Photo-Graphics works with
primitive shapes that can be freely modified at any time.
What you see on the screen is re-rendered into a bitmap every time
you add or modify somthing. It's also re-built whenever you print it,
so the resolution will match the printer's capabilities. The more
primitives you have on the screen, the more memory you need -
regardless of the dimensions of the picture.
A raster/bitmap program, like ColorWorks and Embellish, work with
pixels and not shapes. They all have tools for helping you paint a lot
of pixels "in bulk", in the form of shapes and lines etc. But the only
way of modifying any shape or pixel is to undo back to that point or
just paint over it.
What you see on the screen is what you get. What you print is not
adjusted for resolution. And the memory you need to work with the
picture never changes - but is determined and fixed from the moment
you create a new file and specify its dimentions and color depth.
The lines have been blurred a little bit by some programs, changing a
few of the rules. Photo>Graphics is a vector drawing program, but it
tries to pull off a few tricks invented by the bitmap processors -
such as blurring, sharpening and embossing. But all of these must be
re-calculated every time a change is made - slowing down the program
considerably.
In the other camp, Embellish takes everything you draw and treats it
as its own little bitmap, movable to anywhere on the grand canvas -
like sliding paper cut-outs around on a magnetic board. GIMP and
PhotoShop have layers, which is almost identical to what Embellish
does - but with more control. These all result in greater memory
requirements as more layers get added.
Regardless of the way the two different types of programs attempt to
borrow techniques from each other, they all must start out with one
design or the other. Vector programs are good for diagrams and
illustrations, but they're _NOT_ what you'd use to paint a still life
or touch-up a photograph. Neither do they come within shouting range
of DeluxePaint.
The best program in the "painting and dabbling" category isn't
available for OS/2. It's called Fractal Painter and you can get it for
Mac or Windows. If all he wants is an OS/2 clone of the Windows
Paintbrush, he should try PhotoTiger or NeoN 2D Pixel.
Chris Wenham - edi...@os2ezine.com
The views expressed are mine.
Chris Wenham
>
> I just found a copy of corel draw 2.5 for os/2. It is pretty old,
> but pm based and seems to be very powerful. So far, I
> am impressed.
Corel Draw is a vector drawing program, not a bitmap/raster painter
like what this guy is looking for.
The two types of program are fundamentally different and designed for
different tasks.
Regards,
e-frog
: Here in comp.os.os2.apps, "Wayne Bickell" <wa...@SPAM.tkb.att.ne.jp>
: spake unto us, saying:
: >What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
: I forgot about that one. Can it still be purchased/registered?
: Also, there's Blue Paint:
: http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~pczarny/bpaint.html
: but it's pretty basic.
: Taking a different approach, how about a DOS program like NeoPaint?
: ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/simtelnet/msdos/graphics/neopt32a.zip
Hmm...thanks for the tip! It looks somewhat promising, so I'll download it
and try it out.
I visited their website, and they are NOT shy about saying that it works
under OS/2. 1 point for Neosoft!
Thanks,
Isaac
Wayne Bickell
I found a copy of LogoArt on one of my backup tapes from
early 1998. It's at the same level as the one mentioned on
LogoArt's homepage. When I tried to play with it it crashed
on my system, just died. It went straight to the trashcan.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 03:54:58 -0600, Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>:>LogoArt is not at BMT Micro, and the URL above works but has no image
>:>files at all and the online order link results in a 404 error.
>:>
>:>That doesn't look good. :-(
>
>I did a search at BMT and followed the links for a secure
>registration so I assumed it was still there.
Hmmm. While LogoArt is no longer on the BMT general product listing,
the Worklab site doesn't appear to link to the LogoArt pages anymore,
and the old LogoArt pages look to be in very bad shape (abandoned?),
it *is* something you can still register at BMT.
Strange.
>I may have a copy on one of my backup tapes...
A copy of the last public beta I knew about still exists on Hobbes:
ftp://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/apps/graphics/draw/lartb307.zip
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Ni!
Richard Steiner
>rste...@visi.com (Richard Steiner) said:
>
>>An additional note: the paint tools do not show up "by default" on the
>>main toolbar,
>
>Is that why mine comes up with most of the buttons grayed out when I start
>it? Actually not grayed out, just gray.
Probably. You need to select File->New to create a new bitmap file, or
you need to open at least one existing file.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Liberalism - 1) The art of misinformation.
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:48:07, "Wayne Bickell"
><wa...@SPAM.tkb.att.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
>
> LogoArt is a vector drawing program and FAR removed from painting.
True, but you can take your entire vector drawing created in LogoArt
and save it in any one of something like 15 different bitmap formats.
In other words, it's a vector tool for creating bitmaps. :-)
> The best program in the "painting and dabbling" category isn't
>available for OS/2. It's called Fractal Painter and you can get it for
>Mac or Windows. If all he wants is an OS/2 clone of the Windows
>Paintbrush, he should try PhotoTiger or NeoN 2D Pixel.
Ah! I'd completely forgotten about this one, and it's available on BMT
Micro's web site (http://www.bmtmicro.com) for ordering as well.
I wonder if the Mac Fractal Painter would run under Executor?
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
If only women came with pull-down menus and on-line help!
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
> Corel Draw is a vector drawing program, not a bitmap/raster painter
>like what this guy is looking for.
> The two types of program are fundamentally different and designed for
>different tasks.
True in the general case, but not always true.
For example, GeoDraw (part of the old PC/GEOS-based Geoworks Ensemble
2.0 suite, and still part of NewDeal's New Deal Office product) had
both vector drawing and bitmap painting tools, and you could use both
sets of tools (and even convert selected shapes back and forth between
being a bitmap object and being a vector object) within a given drawing.
In fact, the NewWrite (formerly GeoWrite) application in the current
New Deal Office demo lets you create an object using the object tools,
convert it to a bitmap so you can play with pixel-level tools on it,
and then convert it back to a vector object for resizing or whatever.
http://www.newdealinc.com for the curious. Very nice software, if a
little limited in terms of video drivers.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Happy Holidays!!
life...@xxvol.com
>>it? Actually not grayed out, just gray.
>Probably. You need to select File->New to create a new bitmap file, or
>you need to open at least one existing file.
Well it sure looks ugly with those gray blobs all over it.
Chris Wenham
wrote:
>
> True, but you can take your entire vector drawing created in LogoArt
> and save it in any one of something like 15 different bitmap formats.
>
> In other words, it's a vector tool for creating bitmaps. :-)
The final result of any vector program is almost always going to be a
bitmap anyway. In order to display it on the screen it must have a
copy translated into a bitmap. A printer will ultimately turn it into
a bitmap, too.
Just because can save to a raster based file format does NOT mean
that it's a substitute. A chainsaw can cut wood into shapes, but it's
no substitute for a lathe.
Chris Wenham
wrote:
>
> True in the general case, but not always true.
>
> For example, GeoDraw (part of the old PC/GEOS-based Geoworks Ensemble
> 2.0 suite, and still part of NewDeal's New Deal Office product) had
> both vector drawing and bitmap painting tools, and you could use both
> sets of tools (and even convert selected shapes back and forth between
> being a bitmap object and being a vector object) within a given drawing.
This sounds like Photo>Graphics. The underlying mechanism is still
vector based, since it would be stupid to throw away the information
you lose when you convert to a bitmap.
As a vector based program must re-build the whole picture every time
you change the view anyway, letting the artist fill a shape with an
_effect_ instead of a color or pattern becomes trivial. That effect
could be a blur or a sharpen or a lens effect or any number of raster
based operations which have been packaged. Their results get thrown
away every time the picture gets edited or re-rendered for a different
resolution or output media.
The downside is that the more effects you pile on, the longer it
takes to re-render the image. Raster based programs don't suffer from
this because they throw away the information for each shape after it
has been rendered into a bitmap. That means if you go and draw a
circle, then scale the circle larger, the circle gets "lumpy" because
the program had to magnify pixels instead of a radius.
A vector program will throw away the results and keep the underlying
representations of the shapes. A raster program will throw away the
underlying representations and keep the results. See the difference?
The last one seems stupid until you start trying to paint a scene
with "natural media" style brushes, or re-touch a photograph. Those
types of images contain enormous amounts of subtle information. Too
much and too subtle to be represented by primitives like polygons and
circles.
I could perhaps write a raster based program that keeps a journal of
everything the artist draws so it can re-build everything from the
ground up when I want to re-size a circle originally drawn 15 steps
ago. But what I would have ended up writing would be a slow vector
based program with a very fancy caching system and a user interface
that disguises the fact from the artist.
cotr...@stny.rr.com
>Here in comp.os.os2.apps, ch...@os2ezine.com (Chris Wenham)
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>> Corel Draw is a vector drawing program, not a bitmap/raster painter
>>like what this guy is looking for.
>> The two types of program are fundamentally different and designed for
>>different tasks.
>
The copy of Corel Draw for os/2 that I just obtained has export
options to bitmap, but for some reason they don't work.
My workaround is to caputer the finished drawing from corel with
pmjpeg and then go from there. Pmjpeg has several output options:
ie. jpeg, gif, tiff, etc.
Seems to work quite well. No loss of detail that I can detect.
Keith Cotroneo
cotr...@stny.rr.com
Pierre Jelenc
>
> A vector program will throw away the results and keep the underlying
> representations of the shapes. A raster program will throw away the
> underlying representations and keep the results.
Embellish uses separate objects for each action (pen stroke, air brush,
etc) but they may be merged at will with the base image. This allows
experimentation until the desired result is obtained, at which point
the objects are merged, saving the recalculations for each redraw.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | Home Office Records http://www.web-ho.com
| www.mp3.com/cucumbers www.mp3.com/pawnshop
The New York City Beer Guide | www.cdbaby.com/buy/rawkinder.htm
http://www.nycbeer.org | www.mp3.com/jeniferjackson
Barbara Allen
(Richard Steiner) writes:
:>
:>Here in comp.os.os2.apps, ch...@os2ezine.com (Chris Wenham)
:>spake unto us, saying:
:>>On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 22:48:07, "Wayne Bickell"
:>>
:>>> What about Logoart, is that nearer to a paint program than Embellish?
:>>
:>> LogoArt is a vector drawing program and FAR removed from painting.
:>True, but you can take your entire vector drawing created in LogoArt
:>and save it in any one of something like 15 different bitmap formats.
:>
:>In other words, it's a vector tool for creating bitmaps. :-)
:>
:>>Mac or Windows. If all he wants is an OS/2 clone of the Windows
:>>Paintbrush, he should try PhotoTiger or NeoN 2D Pixel.
:>
:>Ah! I'd completely forgotten about this one, and it's available on BMT
:>Micro's web site (http://www.bmtmicro.com) for ordering as well.
:>
:>I wonder if the Mac Fractal Painter would run under Executor?
Old versions, (2 and 3), of Fractal Design Painter work great in
WinOS2. I just painted "Fa la la la Laaaaa" across a photo of
baby turtles (don't ask..) to send as an e-mail greeting. :)
Barbara
Chris Wenham
>
> Embellish uses separate objects for each action (pen stroke, air brush,
> etc) but they may be merged at will with the base image. This allows
> experimentation until the desired result is obtained, at which point
> the objects are merged, saving the recalculations for each redraw.
That's the same as layers, but with a different user interface that
give's you a control trade-off. Embellish automatically creates a new
layer for every painting operation, but GIMP and Photoshop give you
much greater flexibility with channel operations and what goes into a
new layer or not.
Layers are simply multiple raster images with an alpha channel for
transparency, combined together to form a composite. Each layer is
still treated as a separate image and it's the user interface that
lets the artist think of it as a single cohesive picture.
But the more layers you have, the slower the program gets. This time
the software is not trying to re-paint every shape you've drawn, but
instead is figuring out what is showing through the transparent areas
of the alpha channel.
Embellish isn't too bad for amateur work and simple web page
decorations. It uses an alpha channel to do the anti-aliasing of
shapes and text, so you can re-position something over a new
background without experiencing the "messy aura" problem.
Embellish also keeps the objects independent (un-merged) until you
explicity tell it to merge them or save to a file type that doesn't
support layers.
Embellish isn't quite the bridge between vector and raster based
programs. It still makes "lumpy circles" and you can't go back and
modify the lines of a polygon once you've committed the shape to
canvas.