From: ultred ragnusen <>
Subject: Re: Do you see any advantage of Pinta freeware over Paint.NET screenshot-editing?
Full headers:
From: ultred ragnusen <>
Subject: Re: Do you see any advantage of Pinta freeware over Paint.NET screenshot-editing?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:10:56 -0800
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <jj7nqg3uwtdv$.117it7q0ph319$>
References: <> <p6mdqv$46e$> <gfs41moeepc7.1afnjhmb0gje0$> <p6mnfv$3vo$>
NNTP-Posting-Host: D/z0/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Print Article
Forward Article
Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>   I realize you don't personally care about .Net, but
> since you're cross-posting to photo and freeware
> groups, it's worth noting that Paint.Net always
> requires the very latest .Net framework, which can be
> an enormous hog of space if you don't have anything
> else that needs it. (There's very little popular software
> that does use .Net.)

Hi Mayayana,
I agree with you that it's terrible that Paint.NET requires the abominable
..NET Framework, where, since this is a newly installed HDD, I watched what
the Paint.NET installer installed, and what Pinta installed, which is:

- Paint.NET -> installed .NET Framework 4.7.1
- Pinta -> .NET framework 2.12.22 & GtkSharp 2.12 (whatever that is)

What's odd is that both were installed on the same day this week, where one
installs a vastly different version of .NET Framework than the other.

My main question, since we all hate .NET Framework, is why don't /other/
freeware editors do the /simplest/ of things well? Why is it only Paint.NET
that can get texting, bounding boxes, arrowing, and stretch selections

The split second someone tells me of software that does those 4 things
right (as long as it doesn't do the other easy stuff terribly), I'll ditch
Paint.NET. I swear! :)

1. Add text simply without need for bounding boxes & modify easily (e.g.,
change the size, font, etc., and location in the same steps).

2. Add an "open" bounding box shape that, like the text above, is
modifiable on the fly as you're editing, using anchors for position and
stretch points for shape.

3. Add an arrow that can curve around objects in the screenshot, and, as in
the above, has colors, thicknesses, dashes, arrows, and anchor points that
can be moved on the fly at the time of drawing the arrow.

4. Copy and paste a selection on a screenshot that pastes EXACTLY where you
copied it from (which is a requirement that is mandatory) so that you can
then stretch the edges to cover up extraneous clutter inevitable in any
screenshot, along with an anchor to move the pasted object if you so wish.

I ask only for a screenshot freeware editor that can do, at least, those
four things as easily and as intuitively as does Paint.NET, but I've
searched for decades (it seems) and found none.

Even Pinta, which is intended to be a modern copy of Paint.NET, fails on
all four of those requirements.

>  I downloaded Pinta out of curiosity. The installer tried
> to go online to download .Net4, without asking me.

Yup. See above. Both Paint.NET and Pinta are Microsoft funded, where we all
suspect the entire goal is to put out a .NET Framework application that
people will use (despite the fact we hate that .NET crap).

The funny thing is that the old Paint.NET apparently uses a /newer/ .NET
framework, if the number system means anything sequential.

> Then it popped up a message that there were "errors"
> and it had to quit. No explanation! Only the install log
> told me it was trying to install .Net4, and only my
> firewall told me it was trying to go online. So add faulty
> installer to your negative assessment.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that if we could get rid of these
Microsoft-funded freeware apps, we would.

But I can't find, in decades (it seems) of looking, a better app for
screenshot editing, with respect to the four fundamentals I've described

Sadly, it seems only the MIT students who designed Paint.NET actually
/understood/ screenshot editing usability!

>  I've never tried Paint.Net because of the .Net
> requirement, but also because for anyone who wants
> a full-fledged graphic editor there are plenty of other
> options.

No! Emphatically no!

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on all picture editing freeware, but
if you've ever tried to draw an open bounding box in The GIMP, you'll see
how terrible that GUI is compared to Paint.NET.

If you've ever tried to move and modify a selection in Irfanview, you'll
see how horrid Irfanview is at editing screenshots.

If you've ever tried to draw a curved arrow in ANY freeware editor other
than Paint.NET, you'll see, instantly, that only the Paint.NET MIT
developer knew how to do such simple things.

Please don't think I love only Paint.NET because I /hate/ .NET Framework. 

I love Paint.NET because it does those four things the way they /should/ be
done, where it's astounding to me how difficult, in comparison, to do all
four in other programs.

Bear in mind, other programs do one or the other (especially texting) well,
but none do all four, where all four are a requirement in almost all
screenshot edits.

> Paint Shop Pro 5 is online for free. The latest
> version of PSP was about $50 last I checked. 

Mayayana, I realize you're a coder and you're intelligent and that you know
software - but just listing a bunch of software isn't going to help anyone
because I've tried - for decades (it seems) to find something /better/ than
Paint.NET (because I hate .NET Framework).

Nobody should suggest any other freeware editor until they've /tried/ those
four things in Paint.NET that I posit are (a) done right and (b) needed in
almost all my screenshot edits.

> There's
> GIMP if you absolutely won't spend money for software.

See above. Just try to draw an open bounding box in The GIMP and you'll see
the hell it puts you through for something that is trivially simple to do
in Paint.NET.
> Though
> the category of "screenshot software" seems to be
> unique.

Yours is a viable observation, which I appreciate.

I use those words specifically because I'm an old hand at this type of
editing where you don't usually need to draw bounding boxes, add text,
connect them with arrows, and cover selection areas with "photo editors".

Editing screenshots is completely different than editing photos, where the
similarities are enormous, I agree - but so are the innate differences.

> I've never had a desire to draw a curved
> arrow on anything, but I can see how that would be
> helpful if you were doing something like posting images
> on a website regularly.

The curvature of the arrow is so that you can follow the basic philosophy
of your edits not obscuring the inherent data of the screenshot. You can
draw straight arrows - but you often connect text to bounding boxes where
the text has to go on an empty space on the screenshot as does the arrow.

Of course, if you spend HOURS upon HOURS creating the initial screenshot,
you can likely organize the initial screenshot such that there is space for
the text and arrow that doesn't block the underlying images, but we're
talking basics here.

If I snap a screenshot of this note, for example, and I want to arrow and
text and put a box around your comments, the ability to curve the arrows is
essential for efficiency.