Jump to content

SrPx

Members
  • Content Count

    2,433
  • Joined

Everything posted by SrPx

  1. My first reaction to your thread, before reading it was "YES, Affinity suite can be used for comics, in several ways". Luckily, your post has more interesting depth. Yep, the 1-bit has been requested before, useful for a lot of yet current procedure for printing comics (and some other workflows). When I have published in indy comic magazines, humor gags for computer magazines, or just web comics, I have not been that technically advanced (or industry standard), and it just worked fine, for the output that it was, but for serious comic printing workflows, yep, it'd be very nice to have a TIFF and PDF export in true 1 bit. I vote for that. Or... that a 1-bit tiff layer can be overlaid in publisher (I don't follow Publisher progress... maybe it is possible already?) In the meantime it could be useful for some ( I dunno), to use a nice little app (available for Mac, Windows and Linux) : XnConvert. I tried first with XnView MP, and as was quite in a rush (still am), didn't investigate more, just went ahead to XnConvert, and it seems to save the day. I have NOT made a full test, neither a real scenario project, but IMO, till we get the feature, this could be useful till a limited extent, without needing to purchase expensive software ( It's freeware. "If you intend to use XnConvert in a company, you must purchase a license"...but it's 15 euros, zero issue for 1st world countries at least) : - Unless is an already scanned (with your scanner set so or filtered so) as 1 bit (which is the usual in comics), you can apply any of several possible operations to make it B/W only, even if can only save in APhoto as RGB or etc, not 1 bit. Or if you are directly drawing the lines in Photo (for example), then, besides you will need to work in very zoomed out for such a hi res file, in Affinity, in that case the brush stabilizer (I like "Window" mode) is a total must, you could draw using the "1 pixel" brush thought for pixel art, as you can increase the size of it as needed, and also make the size sensitive to pressure (obviously ONLY that, not for opacity neither other matters!). This way you would be painting your lines with hard edges, pure bitmap way. - Then you save normally as an RGB TIFF (for example). - Open the thing in XnConvert. - Actions tab, click Add Action. Then "image". Then 'Set DPI' (1200 ) . As I have NOT made a full test, I am not sure if it'd be just enough to leave the tiff with the dpi it comes with from Photo. Most surely yes, but just in case you have any issue, am adding this step. Ideally, better if you don't have to add the DPI action. It WONT (tested) produce any resampling, but could perhaps make "the pixels bigger" (u know what aI mean..." xDD ) - Add another action, "change color depth". In its options, choose "BINARY". Important : In dithering, set NONE. - Now... it respects the format it is in, it will output as a tiff, if came as a tiff. But if you saved as other format in Photo ( I recommend tiff, tho) , just go to "output" tab. In "format" area, set TIFF. I set all compression to none. You have a ton of options there and in all the tabs, so review all well, to really get the output you desire. It's really complete, this little tool. If by mistake you set JPG as output...well, that's not what you want. . The bottom status bar saying the time remaining seems to be wrong; only care about the time it says in the upper part (in my arcane 2009 machine a 12k x 10k takes about 5 secs). - PDF export... seems to be based in Ghostscript. Dunno if embedded in XnVIEW / XNConvert (commercial license) or if it is taking my Ghostcript AGPL installation. The thing is, after setting both XNConvert and XnView to display PDF (in global settings, formats, PDF) in read-view as 1200DPI instead of 72, it seems to partially work: It wont be a PDF/X ( I believe it's PDF 1.4), and it makes a very weird thing of making the canvas be 1x1 pixel smaller (in my test, 12800x9600 would become 12799x9599, no idea why). And it'd become a 24 bits file. So, I guess this workflow is useful to get a free (or 15 euros license) way of exporting from Photo (the 24 bits tiff) , and converting to a 1 bit TIFF in XNConvert, and u can batch convert one entire folder with a button click with XnConvert. In that sense, only A. Publisher would need support for such layer to overprint (I guess). But would be much nicer to also already export a 1 bit TIFF from Photo. Maybe the latter is more complex to implement, I don't know. I don't know either enough about publishing matters (I mean, software of the InDesign and Quark type) to know if the other thing would be enough, in Publisher. So, at least doing this you get a 1200 dpi TIFF, 1 bit depth color mode (checked the output with Irfanview and XnView), which you could have "inked" (1px (much bigger base width) special brush, size variance with pressure) in A. Photo. Or just scanned it as 1 bit.
  2. The thing here is that it really does not affect the situation ... The factors (as I mentioned in a recent post) are quite bigger in every way (numbers, money) no matter whatever we expose here as reasons (or even less the convenience of each one's situation) for one take or the other. Meaning, it cannot have practical effect .
  3. I used to develop for the web (not back-end, tho), too... At certain places, with all the environment and colleagues using Linux, I'd use Windows... And that meant me providing with all seamless integration with them, as it was me the one picking a different OS. Just like when I did choose Blender or Wings 3D instead of 3DS Max (but I have handled Max with zero probs, I indeed love it..I just prefer now the others) , I'd be the one ensuring the workflow for them was seamless and free of even minor issues. In the web dev ones (providing myself at almost every company all of the html, css, graphics, and ofc the concept design) , and as I would usually take care of web design and design for print (plus SEO, video editing, etc...) I'd need CMYK and advanced color profiles management workflows, pantones, etc... back then, non possible on Linux, so I needed at least handling a Windows or Mac machine (and I avoid macs for the reasons you mentioned, couldn't agree more). So, part of the needed workflows were often me searching the Linux (samba, etc) and Windows tools to make it for them as smooth as if I were 100% on Linux. Even when doing it so for me it was quite harder. I ended up, in most of the instances... using both OSes (sometimes multibooting in same machine, sometimes with VMs in many ways, most of the times just connecting from windows to all Linux servers, handling stuff from there) to the maximum extent I could. Using Putty, WinSCP on the Windows side, plus every port I could find for windows of every linux tool (not many, back then...) to connect all well, besides virtual machines, remote desktop control tools, and when I had to stay on a Linux machine, every linux graphic app I could grab, and created my very cross platform workflows. Today it would have been pretty easier, as open source software on linux for graphics is much (WAY, indeed...) better. And also the tools to work in that mixed universe of Windows and Linux, have also evolved. Web development can be done from any machine and OS (as I say, I used to do all web code and design from Windows, but I agree, is way more direct if staying solely on Linux) , one way or the other, but I completely see your point, though, of desiring to have it all on Linux. Is very doable to develop from Windows (IMO. I can agree to disagree), but for sure for many web workflows is not optimal, although you can remote connect in many ways and smooth that part.
  4. I'd like to add, though, to be clear.... From a practical POV for an artist who feels that making art, design (or even image editing for non artistic purposes, ie, not for photography, design or illustration) is way more important than the OS choice, then there's absolutely no doubt for me that the practical thing to do is to pick Windows or Mac OS, and just use Affinity, as despite open source graphic software becoming quite better than ever, Affinity is eons ahead.
  5. The real risky, romantic,valiant thing to do by the Linux graphic creation community would be to go ahead and use the actual open source tools: Inkscape, Gimp, Scribus (even if not making anything publishing related, as inkscape can only deal internally with RGB, so, that or using LittleCMS or similar color management system is the only way on Linux and Inskcape), LittleCMS, Blender, Krita (plus some new kids on the block). But that's the heroic, brave path indeed,that almost no one is willing to take (the original Linux users' rugged stamina is a bit not like it used to be. A lot of the new ones want it too easy). I went there part due to own needs (looking at the companies not willing to spend money on graphic software...now am happy they didn't, as could learn all that), but a big part as I believed in those tools (still do, increasingly, as they're now getting way better). I have faith in them. And I know that pushing a bit I'd have convinced the several bosses to buy enough mid cost software to cover all needs, at least. And I realized how useful those (OS apps) can be, with the most expensive and rare ingredient in the planet (patience).
  6. What an amazing move! I just purchased Publisher. The initiative (the whole thing) for helping creatives in this moment has left me speechless. Didn't see that one coming. Kudos!
  7. Finally got Publisher :)

  8. The 500k was just a random number (kind of an example in an informal conversation, not the result of a study. As I understood it! ) thrown into the discussion, back in the day. I don't believe that's enough for creating the suite in Linux. Not even for one of the three apps. That's about 5 or 6 yearly salaries (As an example, average python salary on US 2020, according to some sources, 100 -120k, but this is quite specialized, is not just mastering a language what is needed), so for one single year (and IMO, a port of the apps would take definitely more) for the kind of experienced (and specialized) programmers needed for the task. Let alone the lots of extra costs around it all (and marketing, etc), by far is not just the salaries, equipment, licenses and etc, is quite more. Maybe due to the company's size and high efficiency the costs would be way lower than if was Adobe or the like, but still, any raw estimation clearly leaves that number super small, in my personal opinion. In the open source world that number is absolutely fantastic, and I know that the Gimp team (or even the super organized, evolved, and well funded Blender) would do wonders with that kind of money. But the volunteer factor for open source coding is a big factor in them being kindda OK-ish with earning way less than the current average salary in high end development. Still... One thing is that the company could, despite that, go for it by taking quite a big risk (out of its own pocket). And maybe it could end well (or not, in money terms), so, more of a matter of some big investor, the kind of individuals or entities that indeed have that kind of money, the habit and the information to play with those risks, and sharp eye to pick companies or products to fund. But the company making the software could be putting in risk salaries and the survival of the company as a whole. All this to say that my very personal opinion (and there are so many chances of me being completely wrong in this....) is that for going this route, some very solid investor would have to show up with the real funds needed. And why I've said before that it'd be super nice if that proposition would come from an already big Linux/open source based company, as we know there are now quite a few of certain size (Red Hat, Elastic, MongoDB...these all have a company value in the billions (and I thought Canonical, but that one seems has quite smaller revenue and $ value..)...but even then, Adobe's revenue is quite higher than Red Hat's, for example (like many times more)). I worked for many years at a software developer, and there were quite some offers of investors and boards, but the main issue for taking the money was that typically such investors would require intervening too much in the decision making, and even how the product is managed and produced. In general, for someone with own's business, that's not something to love, but depends on each situation. They took indeed funds of investors that let them more loose, through all those years, and indeed, the company was finally fully acquired by a hefty sum and other matters. But even being a less relevant company to the world (quite less) than Serif, it took a tad of money to convince the bosses (many millions), to change direction. And even more, for being acquired. But I (I mean, we) don't know much about the numbers needed, neither of the obstacles, even less about which are their (not some programmer's desire, but the company's owners' ) inclinations to take one path or another.
  9. El Air creo que tiene 3 gb de RAM....(el ipad pro son 4 o 6). Si editas RAWs, que eso es pesado hasta para un PC potente, no es muy de extrañar (también tendría problemas en el Pro).
  10. Thanks a lot, that's a huge update!. The smart objects import in PSDs is definitely really a step forward.
  11. Thank you specially for the expand stroke improvements!
  12. Indeed, functionality vs standard GUI, innovation over establishment, thinking outside the box... I'd say is part of what the initial Linux community was about... And so, a bad UI with great functionality might stop a mac or windows user (less the latter), but quite less a linux user. Specially of those starting in the 90s, when there were no graphical UIs, indeed. Not defending that one should use bad UIs. As one should be able to learn any UI, but a bad UI ends up also being slow for the work. And that's worse than having a steep learning curve. I don't care if an UI is darn hard to learn. But if something requires a lot of clicks more (happens to Gimp in several features) than the competitors in the same tasks... then that's bad, and sth to fix with more priority than an ugly UI, yep.
  13. I come from using a Spectrum 48K in 1985, going through the glorious 286 and previous XTs... But today am more flexible to UIs, not less... I believe is mostly (please, don't get offended... it happens to me, when I let it be...) that we're all lazy, the young and the old ones... But then we justify it the best we can, hehe. I agree the comfort zone is, well, comfy. But is also dangerous... PS: I am not opposing to your argument : It happens. All my point is that it is a bad habit...
  14. Davinci Resolve is not limiting, and is very powerful. I'd agree with you with other apps. Their Fusion is not more clumsy (IMO) than the very profesional Nuke (also nodes based). (to the other poster... IMO....Davinci is not that hardware demanding. But benefits crazily even from a medium range CPU card. An integrated GPU is no way with it. I wouldn't either edit video with a laptop, but that's me) If Davinci is too much complex (ie, the user is looking for a less professional solution, simpler) I'd totally go with Vegas. Really advanced for intermediate users, yet very easy to learn and handle. I used it every day at my last company, and is really nice software. I'd have preferred Premiere like at other places, or Davinci, but was offered only middle-low range video apps (happened at a bunch of companies). Another one, not my cup of tea, but WAY cheaper (Davinci Resolve's free version is more than enough and much more powerful) a lot of people looking for easier and less professional video editors, Cyberlink's one tends to be a preference for many( I'd choose Vegas over it any day, though). I made entire video game intros at a company with it, better said, a much older and crappier version of it. Despite the subscription model, they have perpetual licenses, purchase. As the other two video editors have. It depends on what each individual wants to achieve. But if choosing the right range for the planned usage, can't go wrong with any of the three. Davinci Resolve is imo the most robust choice, even the free version. Ordered below from more pro to less: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/ https://www.vegascreativesoftware.com https://es.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector-video-editing-software/
  15. For a logo is highly recommended to trace manually (if all the legal grounds are covered, as is a no-way in many cases). As for such thing an auto tracer will require such heavy nodes cleaning that the work for that is more time consuming than just tracing over manually. And the latter is always more optimized and accurate. Provided there are legal permissions to produce such a version of the logo, I'd manually do the vectors. An usual logo will be about 10 -30 nodes, or the like. Quite fast. If is for dirty and even faster works and tasks, you're even better just doing some selection to eliminate the white, and then apply whatever the hue or fill to the layer transparency selection, or as a layer effect, etc. In photo, maybe using its "vector " tools to trace over the logo, then fill with the color, or etc
  16. Of course, no problem. I've heard certain details from some individuals closer to the team (the most important info... but can't link that...mostly that thanks to certain Google Summer project, certain individual (I always forget the name, sorry) is going to code most of that part of providing full CMYK support to Gimp), but so to put here right now at least some links to get you some info : The roadmap (old news, as it has been made clear that CMYK will be fully in quite earlier than initially expected) in "The Future" section : https://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap In here, jump to the "What’s new in GEGL and babl" section : https://www.gimp.org/news/2020/01/04/gimp-and-gegl-in-2019/ In the version 2.10.18 just released 2 days ago, 24th, pls jump to the section "PSD support improvements" ...I believe we will be seeing bits like this in the updates this year, so, in the right direction: https://www.gimp.org/news/2020/02/24/gimp-2-10-18-released/ And in their FAQ, before there was an answer with a not too convenient explanation and link to an article of how CMYK was not a good idea in Gimp (proprietary stuff, libraries, etc), but they have instead changed 180º in that, thankfully (or thanks to GEGL that allows them to move from a very static situation with the color modes), and what their plans are now are very promising (it's all owed to several new libraries merged - or in the process- with Gimp) : https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-do-a-lot-of-desktop-publishing-related-work-will-you-ever-support-cmyk Considering the position both Inkscape ( I believe is also working on the CMYK stuff, but don't quote me on that...) and Gimp were stubbornly installed at, for many years, in relation to CMYK, all this is HUGE for the app, so to become really solid for professional print workflows. And yet so, in this, Affinity is eons ahead of it. But despite that, quite promising. Gimp has also grown crazily lately (meaning, recent months) in functionality and UI improvements not related to CMYK. I keep believing that many of the Linux users are not really giving it a solid chance. It can't be that me (maybe as had to use it at work, heavily), who am now a Windows user till a new major world order change might occur, can use it problem-free, even on my Windows (and these apps tend to run better on Windows that on Mac, but much better on Linux than on Windows), and that Linux lovers can't see its real value. Really, you have a very strong alternative in Gimp and Inkscape (specially the 1.0 beta!!). I have not handled that much Scribus, as I'm not so much into publishing apps, but the little I used it, I could manage, despite the super spartan and hard UI. And Blender... well, that's in an entirely different league. That thing is a wonder, full stop.
  17. Well, Inkscape also exports PDF ( I believe they still use Cairo for that, but not sure...)
  18. I get what you say. And... what I meant, it depends on what have you been forced to deal with, to be able to "forgive" certain UIs... is that I yet remember how it was Blender when using C-License, before becoming open source. Basically there was no UI, so to speak. LOL. Or worse. I "enjoyed" some pre-alpha internal map editors and other game editing utilities, in-house made, with spagetthi C++ code (so they called it, lol) , crashing every two seconds or hard breathing. Counter intuitive to the point of thinking how difficult would have been to make that so badly IF made on purpose. I mean.. those were the days. I still remember how we saw Truespace as a wonder of an UI, as it saved us from a "harder" UI as Blender (intitial) was... and I can tell you, current Gimp or Inkscape were A TON more usable and intuitive than that thing. Heck, Autodesk Animator 1.0 for DOS, or Deluxe Paint, as much praise as those always get, people knew those well as were forced to learn them, no other option. And became really familiar. But if you think of it, to guess what everything did for a newcomer was quite more difficult. And certainly, the workflows were not the fastest possible, to say the least. Much more cumbersome than today's. And I've handled those to the deepest level at school, even later in college (while even Corel Draw 4 was already around). My point is that, after many years (decades) clearly detecting as the main problem the lack of a capability I forced my self to... kind of... "like every UI". Or ended up make it so familiar to me that I'd get inside the weird mind of who made that crime of an UI, in every case. Currently, we need fast UIs, can't compete in the market if not. But not for learning ease, but because a more clicks workflow, slower UI will penalize you in a competitive market. Even so I prefer functionality and solid function, bug free, over UI excellence. That's why I'm fine with Gimp, Inkscape, or (less the case) Scribus. What made me not just stay with them after using 'em for all at latest companies was indeed the lack of functionality. IE, yet Gimp today (latest released version) when opening a CMYK file, needs to convert it to sRGB, can do so to a wider color space. And has to do so as yet does not have a CMYK color mode. But from being reluctant to even touch CMYK, to adding this now, and clearly having a full CMYK mode in the near roadmap.... That's HUGE. But anyone can easily see how far away then is Affinity Photo in several industry matters that are absolutely crucial. And yet... in its own way, Gimp is very powerful.
  19. Sk1 has really a slow updates pace. To say it extremely gently. It's been a bunch of years, now. But I give to it a massive kudos for having put CMYK support from the start (thankfully, it was founded by illustrators, or at least, part of the team was, from what I read). Inkscape is WAY stronger in functionality than most people think, indeed. Most get thrown away by the UI. Most of those having not handled really hard UIs, btw. And Gimp is the one of those 3 advancing faster, lately. And yep, these are good apps. But a lot of people (even Linux users (specially new breed ones)... which I find pretty shocking) automatically think proprietary apps are better. No matter how much Blender is proving every day (with every update and in the hands of pro users... heck, is my only tool for 3D, now) that while those have the clear advantage due to resources and money, it is possible too in the open source land to create pro level tools.
  20. I beg to respectfully differ. In Krita, Alt for color picking is slow when configured in the Wacom pen's side button compared to Photoshop. If you paint with realistic style, strongly based on fast canvas color picking, this becomes an issue quite fast. Photoshop when configured well for GPU usage with a good card has an amazing painting performance (most complaining about PS painting performance are often students on a laptop with integrated card, poor CPU and not much RAM) , and the blending of basic brush (meaning, the main brush system) is IMO better than in Krita. Indeed, when well configured Photoshop CC 2018, 19 and 20 gets you a lot more performance in very large canvases when doing a painting for a client who requires exactly that, a large painting 2 meters wide at 300 dpi. Actually, it does this better than most apps (tested it all carefully). Also, IMO the flow/opacity control in Photoshop is superior. Corel Painter has been there for ages. And that one is pretty good for painting, too. Maybe the other advantages (many due to being a versatile image editor) are not so minimal when despite Painter's existence for decades (and years of Art Rage, Sketchbook Pro and etc), Photoshop has continued to be the choice for so, so many amazing digital painters. Even more, the main tool for concept artists at almost every game studio. To the point that for most of them you cannot be even a candidate (easy to check in a job interview) if PS would not be your tool for painting. And I'm leaving out the studios which mainly want a photo basher. Indeed, I'm pretty sure PS is used by way more digital painters, matte painters and concept artists than Krita. That said, I believe Krita has a very bright future. But I see big issues that I don't see in Clip Studio Paint, for example. Indeed, I'd choose Corel Painter over Krita (if weren't that darn expensive in its non subscription option, and its subs based one... well, I'm against subscriptions in software) , but not over CSP. And it is exciting to have the option of purchasing things like the Atelier addon, which does a very good job on mimicking well oil paints and water colors. But until it gets really integrated in Krita (and so, ensured it will be there to stay, as the Atelier is done and maintained by a guy not inside the Krita team), and the alt + wacom button issue improved, blending using the basic brush, and some performance matters... Till then I think it will keep being nice, but nothing ground breaking. Specially not with the options available, at least on Windows and Mac OS. BTW, the incoming Gimp update is impressive. And they really are finally going for a full CMYK mode (not in the next update).
  21. That's awesome, Kudos!. Your graphic novel is gonna rock, big time. Yep... Big fan of the basic round brush... I'm an all time voter for consolidating the basic brush system. As in every app, I can fake almost oil painting with just good old flow and opacity control. In many ways. Of course, going all the way to mimic my so much loved oil painting (which I miss so bad), or watercolors, I prefer to go all the way to something like Verve Painter (oils), Rebelle (watercolors) , Painter or Art Rage (the two latest, for many techniques). As kind of the other stuff is a bit in between. But as an illustrator, all those fall short in real world functionality for many illustrators, at least for my workflow. Also, I am not only a painter. And I often mix techniques. Yep, oil and watercolor brushes in every other app make it look nice often almost similar, but as one insists in painting (I don't paint "a la prima" (tho that technique is about painter always over wet) and leave it so, neither with real paints, no classic painter did this, in centuries), and as you insist, the effect gets more digital. Even if always "painterly" as that's each one's personal touch, but for me what is really worth is just a simple solid brush system, performing really well (brush lag, color picking lag (super key in realistic painting), line jitter, painting zoomed out, how it feathers, etc. Those are the key things I always care for in a painting app. Not the brush library. But that's me). I can do wonders in Photoshop with the basic round brush. Is what I use at every company. I currently use a heavily modified version of the oil paint brush in CSP, but as that one has some features/settings really mimicking traditional paints behaviors, although not totally in the final look, but yep in how it works till certain degree. But the result is a bit more painterly. Even so, the amount of image editing and final preparation, formats, integration, etc, etc that I have in Affinity Photo, makes it worth it to keep trying to make AP my main illustration app. I'm not into vectors for illustration (AD serves me very well in any graphic design task), but also as my style is very different than yours. What you do can be entirely done in AP, but the features in AD are time savers for what I believe you do there. Keep 'em coming, these are gorgeous.
  22. Yep, 2500 is way too big (my first read was... ok, that post is crazy) , but not for stamping techniques. A lot of collage makers and other designers work so. And really interesting stuff can be done with those techniques. Any performance improvement in the brush system is very welcome. What'd benefit your workflow would also help us digital painters using way smaller brushes. My machine typically wont allow me using more than 300px/400px brush sizes, with virtually any software. Which is kindda fine for my work, though. When needing that size of areas to cover for first concepts I just block and lasso fill even and whatever is faster, then is 100% typical brush work (but the activity is a whole other ball game).
  23. As an ex web designer (stopped it years ago).. .could it be that most of those are web designers, digging for a font for their site, web apps or mobile app , I mean, they are searching for fonts while designing their site/app using web dev languages ? as the majority of that folk ( I was almost an exception, hated Windows user) tend to be linux based, as, dealing so much with linux web servers, it just makes sense for the workflows, less context change. Even more today, when web designers are other thing (not really graphic designers able to code, as was before...so...fewer graphic grunts like me using Adobe or the like, tied to Windows/Mac due to that, or per choice.We're now more in other areas) , and is all mostly about web devs mounting sites with frameworks, even if following some UX/UI person's prototypes. And even those are often using Figma (using whatever the platform). Or Sketch from their mac, but even if doing so, yet the web developer needs the specified font. And IMO there are a ton more coders than UX/UI experts. Which often are not really graphic designers anymore. I mean, they don't really need PS to make a "high fidelity" graphic (they do the low fidelity ones, they build the wireframes), that's a (dirty?) task for the "visual designer". So, they can very well be platform agnostic. The graphic grunts... we really can't :).
  24. As Dan C mentions, it is not to be set in console, but in properties of the Affinity Photo (or etc) desktop icon. In the "target" field, and the full *.exe file path and file, surrounded by quotes ( " " ). Not the command itself, if I remember well. Also, the actual command is : --no-dwm-warning At least, I wasn't aware about there being such other command, --no-hw-ui (no hardware UI ?) that shows up in your console screenshot. The one I mentioned used to work well when , like you was not willing to use Aero. Then I discovered that reducing the Aero "cringyness" was a much better path. That one just linked by Dan C is one of several tutorials I made about the matter, but long story short: You only need like 3 or 4 Aero features, not 20, so, Windows gets to be almost the same if configured so.( Anyway... no more security patches now for win 7....so... ) But yup, you should be able to run it both ways, in Windows 7. Let us know if you would still find problems, here.
  25. You can always make an illustrated novel (aka comic? or is more like an illustrated book ? ) about other matter, story or etc. Or I guess, that was probably paid, and so, the enormous time and effort, covered.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.