3 ms·
It's been a "bug" for several decades now. Not everything was of shitty jagged quality in either 90s or 00s. Particularly when using some more capable image edi
by pxoe 1mo ago
It's been a "bug" for several decades now. Not everything was of shitty jagged quality in either 90s or 00s. Particularly when using some more capable image editors.
- cj 1mo agoIf you’re actually intended to Paint in MS Paint, as in create things from scratch, you need to limit the upper end of quality for it to be usable. Otherwise you might as well use photoshop. (But no I’m not kidding myself, I realize the days of using Paint to actually Paint are over)
- pxoe 1mo agoThere's a bunch of smaller editors that don't have such problems, like paint.net for example. It's an arbitrary "limit" (accidental even) stemming purely from bad quality implementation of basic features, not from how basic that feature set is.
- cj 1mo agoI like the original commenter’s compromise. > It seems like they could have left it as a pure “paint” app and added the fancy stuff to some new image editor or something. Apple Text Edit vs Pages.
- pxoe 1mo agoAgain, even a "pure" paint app with very limited functionality can have it be implemented badly, and it has nothing to do with how "fancy" or complex or advanced of a feature set it has.