Hello, again.
I think i found something interesting:
Paint.NET
Free and Open Source
Site: http://www.getpaint.net/
Screenshots: http://www.getpaint.net/screenshots.html
Download: http://www.getpaint.net/redirect/mirror ... anews.html
Just requires de .NET Framework 2.0
Just download the Setup, install on any folder and run on any computer.
About
Paint.NET is image and photo manipulation software designed to be used on computers that run Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2003. It supports layers, unlimited undo, special effects, and a wide variety of useful and powerful tools.
It started development at Washington State University as an undergraduate senior design project mentored by Microsoft, and is currently being maintained by some of the alumni that originally worked on it. Originally intended as a free replacement for the MS Paint software that comes with Windows, it has grown into a powerful yet simple tool for photo and image editing. The programming language used to create Paint.NET is C#, with a small amount of C++ for setup and shell-integration related functionality.
Features
Simple, intuitive user interface
Every feature and user interface element was designed to be immediately intuitive and quickly learnable without assistance. It is also designed to be immediately familiar to users of the original MS Paint software that comes with Windows.
Layers
Usually only found on expensive or complicated professional software, layers form the basis for a rich image composition experience. You may think of them as a stack of transparency slides that, when viewed together at the same time, form one image.
Powerful Tools
Paint.NET includes simple tools for drawing shapes, including an easy-to-user curve tool for drawing simple splines or Bezier curves. The facilities for creating and working with selections is powerful, yet still simple enough to be picked up quickly. Other powerful tools include the Magic Wand for selecting regions of similar color, and the Clone Stamp for copying or erasing portions of an image. There is also a simple text editor, a tool for zooming, and a Recolor tool.
Unlimited History
Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody changes their mind. To accommodate this, every action you perform on an image is recorded in the History window and may be undone. Once you've undone an action, you can also redo it. The length of the history is only limited by available disk space.
Special Effects
Many special effects are including for perfecting your images. Everything from blurring, sharpening, red-eye removal, distortion, and embossing are included. Also included is our unique 3D Rotate/Zoom effect that makes it very easy to add perspective and tilting.
Adjustments are also included which help you tweak an image's brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, and levels.
Open Source and Free
Paint.NET is provided free-of-charge, and the source code (all 105,000 lines of it) is also available for free under generous licensing terms. The bulk of Paint.NET is written in C#, with only a small amount of code related to setup and shell-integration written in C++.
Thanks
Nuno Leite
Paint.NET
-
Andrew Lee
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
- Contact:
We are in the process of formulating some FAQ concerning this or other issues but essentially the answer to your question is "yes". It is because Paint.net relies on the .net platform which is:
a) large
b) NOT portable
and in regard to Money Manager Ex, the rewritten version does NOT use .net, only the old version, which is no longer being developed. Be careful not to confuse those two versions, they are clearly marked on the Money Manager Ex website.
a) large
b) NOT portable
and in regard to Money Manager Ex, the rewritten version does NOT use .net, only the old version, which is no longer being developed. Be careful not to confuse those two versions, they are clearly marked on the Money Manager Ex website.
Hi, I don't know, but we have an very good redlar's portapotty app - and if my memory serves well - I saw an opensource .net beginning somewhere. Maybe (I said maybe!) we could solve this problem. Hey, what if an app needs such extension - and we have the open source (near) equivalent app/component/extension - is it possible to give as a portapotty plugin to have an portable - for example .net app??nunoleite wrote:You're Right, the Money Manager Ex doesn't use .NET Framework.
My mistake.
What do you think guys? Is it possible? (or later?) Or the whole app size will be too large?
The only problem with this is, that if we do this for every .net app we come across, then you are going to end up with many large apps, all with a repeated .net platform. Seems like a waste to me. As I've stated in the past, why bother with all this hassle when I can find other perfectly suitable apps, that do exactly the same but AREN'T dependent on the .net platform.
Furthermore, the database is supposed to contain apps that are inherently portable or have had some major code modification to make them portable (a feat which not every user is able to accomplish). If everyone starts using portapotty, to modify any programs they wish then you might as well rename the website to the 'EveryPieceOfWindowsSoftwareEverCreated.com", which to my mind makes it a much less useful resource.
As always, my final comment would be, that if YOU (or any other users) want to try to create a portable Paint.net version for your own use, be my guest. I personally am happy with PaintStar and PaintBox, both of those apps in combination fulfil my graphics editing needs.
Furthermore, the database is supposed to contain apps that are inherently portable or have had some major code modification to make them portable (a feat which not every user is able to accomplish). If everyone starts using portapotty, to modify any programs they wish then you might as well rename the website to the 'EveryPieceOfWindowsSoftwareEverCreated.com", which to my mind makes it a much less useful resource.
As always, my final comment would be, that if YOU (or any other users) want to try to create a portable Paint.net version for your own use, be my guest. I personally am happy with PaintStar and PaintBox, both of those apps in combination fulfil my graphics editing needs.
Last edited by Darkbee on Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think you are mostly right. Better way to look around, and search for equivalent portable apps, wich sometimes even better apps are as the commercial ones. I don't wanna to make portable Paint.net. - I don't need it. I've got me too PaintStar and Liquid Icon what is quite enough for me on XP/2k. For home, personal use on Win, it's alright.Darkbee wrote:The only problem with this is, that if we do this for every .net app we come across, then you are going to end up with many large apps, all with a repeated .net platform. Seems like a waste to me. As I've stated in the past, why bother with all this hassle when I can find other perfectly suitable apps, that do exactly the same but AREN'T dependent on the .net platform.
Furthermore, the database is supposed to contain apps that are inherently portable or have had some major code modification to make them portable (a feat which not every user is able to accomplish). If everyone starts using portapotty, to modify any programs they wish then you might as well rename the website to the 'EveryPieceOfWindowsSoftwareEverCreated.com", which to my mind makes it a much less useful resource.
As always, my final comment would be, that if YOU (or any other users) want to try to create a portable Paint.net version for your own use, be my guest. I personally am happy with PaintStar and PaintBox, both of those apps in combination fulfil my graphics editing needs.[/i]
By the way. I don't like .NET me either, but - what if you need an portable toolchain for an very mixed network? You have to install on the stick XP, Mac, Linux and the 3 types of prg's to use it? Or Live CD's? Sure not.
For me to have an ideal portable kit must be
A - on java base, wich is (if needed with/out OS) can be bootable,
B - it has an independent launcher with GUI
C - it can handle extensions (GTK, NET, a.s.o. ) as an option - if needed (test suites, diags)
D - for multiple OS?
E - with multiple portable apps
What do you think?
Courious question: Is ONLY windows have freeware portable apps?
Or: Portapotty will be for windows only??
About "Everywinsoftwarewhatisevenonceiscreated.com", is not fully true. You know this. Because when portapotty goes popular, this site stays useful, WHEN it is good moderated, merchandised, and the licence of portapotty binds to here - to this site the created portablized programs and the author(s) and their rights. Am I right?
Windows is the only platform I know of that has the concept of a registry, so applications on other platforms like Linux and Mac, are inherently portable, just because they are never tied a "registry". Naturally, there are other issues to consider but I'm merely generalizing. As for your idea of having a portable OS based on Java, that sounds rather scary... I would be afraid that it would be horribly slow, since Java is an interpreted language rather than compiled, which is what makes it cross-platform.
Having said that, I have heard of processors that have Java embedded, for use with small electronic devices but these are usually nowhere near as complicated as an operating system. Of course one of the biggest issues with having a cross-platform operating system, is that different machines use different processors, and different processors have different instruction sets. This means that, when you get down to the machine code level, even on different processors the code can/will be different.
I don't think your idea of bypassing the OS altogether works because you can't really have any applications without an OS. The OS handles so much more than user input and output; memory management, system calls, disk accessing, other hardware resources etc etc. Probably the best solution I have come across so far for a "self contained" solution, are the Live CDs that you spoke of, most of which contain the most basic of applications to cover regular needs.
Having said that, I have heard of processors that have Java embedded, for use with small electronic devices but these are usually nowhere near as complicated as an operating system. Of course one of the biggest issues with having a cross-platform operating system, is that different machines use different processors, and different processors have different instruction sets. This means that, when you get down to the machine code level, even on different processors the code can/will be different.
I don't think your idea of bypassing the OS altogether works because you can't really have any applications without an OS. The OS handles so much more than user input and output; memory management, system calls, disk accessing, other hardware resources etc etc. Probably the best solution I have come across so far for a "self contained" solution, are the Live CDs that you spoke of, most of which contain the most basic of applications to cover regular needs.
-
Andrew Lee
- Posts: 3116
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
- Contact:
I have worked quite extensively with Java (3 - 5 years), and played with Java apps over the same period (Eclipse, JEdit, Aseurus, Tomcat, you name it), so I feel I am qualified to speak a little on this subject. 
A lot of people think Java is slow because it is an interpreted language. No it is not. It hasn't been since JDK V1.2, when JIT (just-in-time compiler) was thrown in. Since then, the JIT compiler has gotten better and better. In fact, you will find a lot of benchmarks that shows how Java is faster than C++ in most cases! The .NET runtime works essentially in this manner too.
So why does it _feel_ so slow? Well, one problem is the runtime. Even for the smallest app, you need to drag the whole runtime into memory. So that's quite a pig for client-side apps. Worse still, even the most recent JDK does not support JVM sharing, so for every client app that you run, you are essentially pulling in a fresh copy of the JVM!
How about client apps that are essentially resident in memory eg. Aseurus? Well, that brings us to the other problem: the memory overhead. Java apps typically have a heap that objects are allocated from. By default, this is 8MB that (I think) is capable of growing to 64MB max. Most Java apps will make this heap bigger eg. 128MB or 256MB. For some reason, the actually memory usage almost always grows to a sizable percentage of the max heap. For example, if you allocate 128MB max heap, the memory usage will be > 100MB.
You may think a 100MB here and a 100MB there is small change given today's gigagbyte systems, but it adds up. To make matters worse, the Windows virtual memory system doesn't seem to work well with Java apps. Things are always getting paged into harddisk, and when they are loaded back from the harddisk, it is always done in small bits and pieces so that there are unacceptable pauses here and there which makes everything seems so slllooowww. I think it has got to do with the fact that Java apps are typically dependent on a lot of JAR files, which are loaded on demand.
I don't have as much experience with .NET, but from my limited experience (I have played with some .NET IDEs and RSS readers), it appears to suffer from the same problems, except .NET has one single shared runtime, but there is still a high startup overhead for the first app, and things are scattered into many pieces.
It is telling that Vista (and Office 2007) is mostly _NOT_ .NET, although M$ has been selling managed code as the future of programming. I think it works great for enterprise apps because it abstracts you from low-level mechanics such as memory management and parameter passing semantics (by reference or by value), but not as well for shrinkwrapped desktop apps.
A lot of people think Java is slow because it is an interpreted language. No it is not. It hasn't been since JDK V1.2, when JIT (just-in-time compiler) was thrown in. Since then, the JIT compiler has gotten better and better. In fact, you will find a lot of benchmarks that shows how Java is faster than C++ in most cases! The .NET runtime works essentially in this manner too.
So why does it _feel_ so slow? Well, one problem is the runtime. Even for the smallest app, you need to drag the whole runtime into memory. So that's quite a pig for client-side apps. Worse still, even the most recent JDK does not support JVM sharing, so for every client app that you run, you are essentially pulling in a fresh copy of the JVM!
How about client apps that are essentially resident in memory eg. Aseurus? Well, that brings us to the other problem: the memory overhead. Java apps typically have a heap that objects are allocated from. By default, this is 8MB that (I think) is capable of growing to 64MB max. Most Java apps will make this heap bigger eg. 128MB or 256MB. For some reason, the actually memory usage almost always grows to a sizable percentage of the max heap. For example, if you allocate 128MB max heap, the memory usage will be > 100MB.
You may think a 100MB here and a 100MB there is small change given today's gigagbyte systems, but it adds up. To make matters worse, the Windows virtual memory system doesn't seem to work well with Java apps. Things are always getting paged into harddisk, and when they are loaded back from the harddisk, it is always done in small bits and pieces so that there are unacceptable pauses here and there which makes everything seems so slllooowww. I think it has got to do with the fact that Java apps are typically dependent on a lot of JAR files, which are loaded on demand.
I don't have as much experience with .NET, but from my limited experience (I have played with some .NET IDEs and RSS readers), it appears to suffer from the same problems, except .NET has one single shared runtime, but there is still a high startup overhead for the first app, and things are scattered into many pieces.
It is telling that Vista (and Office 2007) is mostly _NOT_ .NET, although M$ has been selling managed code as the future of programming. I think it works great for enterprise apps because it abstracts you from low-level mechanics such as memory management and parameter passing semantics (by reference or by value), but not as well for shrinkwrapped desktop apps.
Portable Paint.Net How to
Paint.Net is a nifty photo manipulation app and free as well.
http://www.getpaint.net/index.html
And now to make it portable:
You will need http://legroom.net/modules.php?op=modlo ... uniextract (free)
This will allow you to extract PaintDotNet.msi from the installer.
Extract this further using uniextract and you will have a folder PaintDotNet with the app in it.
Delete the copy of PaintDotNet.msi that is in this folder.
Now copy the complete folder to your pen drive and launch PaintDotNet.exe
If you use a portable app front end ie PStart then you can add the app to this and launch it from there.
It does require the PC you are running it on has the .NET Framework 2 installed (Which should be most up to date PC's) and it does add a registry entry when first run on a PC, so is not a true 100% portable app, but I still think it is better like this as it preserves the directory structure based on the machine it is run off (Basically it won't try opening a non existent drive),so if round a mates, you have got the app with you.
The registry information is screen position of window, last opened file, window size, which of 4 toolbars is open and not much else.
Installed size on disk 9.78 MB.
Never mind, just noticed Andrew does not accept .NET submissions.
Still dosen't stop the rest of us though!.
Sorry for wasting your time Andrew.
http://www.getpaint.net/index.html
And now to make it portable:
You will need http://legroom.net/modules.php?op=modlo ... uniextract (free)
This will allow you to extract PaintDotNet.msi from the installer.
Extract this further using uniextract and you will have a folder PaintDotNet with the app in it.
Delete the copy of PaintDotNet.msi that is in this folder.
Now copy the complete folder to your pen drive and launch PaintDotNet.exe
If you use a portable app front end ie PStart then you can add the app to this and launch it from there.
It does require the PC you are running it on has the .NET Framework 2 installed (Which should be most up to date PC's) and it does add a registry entry when first run on a PC, so is not a true 100% portable app, but I still think it is better like this as it preserves the directory structure based on the machine it is run off (Basically it won't try opening a non existent drive),so if round a mates, you have got the app with you.
The registry information is screen position of window, last opened file, window size, which of 4 toolbars is open and not much else.
Installed size on disk 9.78 MB.
Never mind, just noticed Andrew does not accept .NET submissions.Still dosen't stop the rest of us though!.
Sorry for wasting your time Andrew.
-
sproaticus
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:22 am
Thanks for posting this. Even thought .NET 2.0 isn't completely ubiquitous, in some cases (most of the time for me, but YMMV) it is safe to assume that it's probably present. So while I agree with Andrew's criteria for not posting .NET apps in the list, I also appreciate discovering which .NET apps are otherwise portable, too.
Re: Portable Paint.Net How to
Hi,
Sorry to bump old thread but unfortunatly trick above no longer works.
Anyone knows how to make Paint.Net 'portable'?
Sorry to bump old thread but unfortunatly trick above no longer works.
Anyone knows how to make Paint.Net 'portable'?
Re: Portable Paint.Net How to
The current version of Paint.Net is no longer portable (using regular means).
You'll have to buy Thinstall and make a thinstalled version of it or you could use one of the illegal-ready-made versions around (not recommended).
You'll have to buy Thinstall and make a thinstalled version of it or you could use one of the illegal-ready-made versions around (not recommended).
Re: Portable Paint.Net How to
LOL. Thx, i asked developer. Instructions above work fine with 3.36, not sure of upcoming versions...
Thx, i asked developer. Instructions above work fine with 3.36, not sure of upcoming versions...