2.8 right now is a show-stopper, literally. But until that download file size changes and the hash remains the same, I'll wait for the next iteration of GIMP. If they ever update 2.8 for Windows to fix the speed and display issues, I'll check it out. There were other problems with layers and layer selections before that I didn't notice last time I tried GIMP, however I've uninstalled 2.8 and have gone back to 2.6.12 since it addresses all of my needs, even if it isn't as "new" as 2.8. Since I use some Windows-only programs to create part of my GIMP projects, switching back and forth between them, having to use two operating systems to get my projects done isn't practical. I've tried GIMP 2.8 for Windows three times, but it has not been updated since the 2.8 for Linux came out. In 2.6, it didn't take any noticeable time at all. In 2.6, it didnt take any noticeable time at all. When switching from hidden to visible, it took about 30 seconds to load, a row at a time. When switching from hidden to visible, it took about 30 seconds to load, a row at a time. After installing and running GIMP 2.8 without any problems, I opened an old project with about a dozen layers, one of which was a template I used to size a project for print. Not exactly state of the art, but no slouch in the processing department.Īfter installing and running GIMP 2.8 without any problems, I opened an old project with about a dozen layers, one of which was a template I used to size a project for print. I run 2 GB 1066 DDR2 RAM in a Winx XP Pro, SP3 machine with a 3.0 GHz Core2 Duo processor. It's four times larger than Gimp 2.6 last version, but that's not an issue. I didn't get beyond that in my evaluation. My problem with Gimp 2.8 is that it's SLOW.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |