Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by waltbosz on Friday April 18, 2025 @09:38AM
(#43727982)
It's fun to see the retro gaming aesthetic come to the world of creativity software.
I wonder what other categories of software could you pull this off? For example, I couldn't imagine anyone waxing nostalgic for the UX of an old word processor app.
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by palmotea on Friday April 18, 2025 @11:18AM
(#43728882)
> For example, I couldn't imagine anyone waxing nostalgic for the UX of an old word processor app.
I can. An old world processor may have a much more keyboard-optimized UX.
Also, there were a lot of thoughtful people working decades ago when old computer technology was new. Thoughtfully designed software from 1989 could probably beat the latest 2025 jank in many ways.
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by cestith on Friday April 18, 2025 @01:54PM
(#43730367)
Plenty of people use Midnight Commander or Total Commander both of which hearken back to Norton Commander for DOS (back before Norton sold to Symantec).
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by cestith on Friday April 18, 2025 @01:53PM
(#43730350)
I know quite a few people who use old form design software, old contact managers, old email clients, old text editors, old spreadsheet packages, old CAD software, and yes even old word processors because they prefer the interface. Of course “old” is subjective. There are WordStar, MS Word, MS Works, and WordPerfect for DOS. There are early Windows versions of Word and WordPerfect. There’s 1-2-3, Excel, and others for decades or one could go all the way back to VisiCalc. I know people who still use Mutt or Pine for email.
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by justin66 on Friday April 18, 2025 @02:06PM
(#43730459)
> I couldn't imagine anyone waxing nostalgic for the UX of an old word processor app.
This is a very strange sentiment in general, since word processors are pretty much the only retro software that's worth keeping and using today - professional writers often hang onto them. It's especially strange to hear in a place where people routinely use fifty year old text editors.
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by rikroots on Friday April 18, 2025 @02:49PM
(#43730842)
You made me go and search for for my first-ever favourite word processor. It turns out that Wordworth v7 is available for download via the Internet Archive[1]. Apparently there was a v7.1 release back in 2008[2] but I can't locate a download of it - not even on Aminet![3]
Next, I need an Amiga emulator that runs on a MacBook Pro ...
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by 2mlWQbCK on Friday April 18, 2025 @03:27PM
(#43731155)
Not just a modern application with a retro gaming aesthetic, but this year I got heavily into using (ex-Autodesk, now open source) Animator as my programmer art application of choice. Actual 16-bit software.
Fun restrictions to work with/around and it has some fun features too. Running in DOS also makes it run everywhere, including on my phone.
Would be happy to use more old DOS software, but I just have not found more that seemed as useful (maybe VGAPaint 386 for a different paint app?). No constant (forced) upgrades to keep up with. I can compromise a lot with features if it means that I can spend years/decades on mastering a tool instead of just barely keeping up with how the latest version works. Learning is much more fun than re-learning. (Guess that is why I always liked Emacs so much.)
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by VyseofArcadia on Friday April 18, 2025 @11:44AM
(#43729152)
I wonder, does it just let you draw pictures based on the as-advertised color and resolution limitations, or does it take into account clever programming tricks that can increase the color count (with some limitations)?
Re:Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit...
by mrandish on Friday April 18, 2025 @04:13PM
(#43731480)
I'm looking for recommendations for other current Windows paint programs more in the style of old-school 90s paint software (DeluxePaint) but with modern affordances and fun, interactive features especially for empowering un-skilled, non-artists to just enjoy doodling around for hours like I used to back in the day.
Longer Context
Going back to to the early 80s I've always loved playing with computer drawing programs - despite having no real artistic skill. In the 8-bit era, even the best (like Micropainter on the Apple II) were functional yet still fairly primitive. Starting with 16-bit computers and programs like the legendary DeluxePaint, paint software really started to get fun and I could spend hours just doodling around. It was highly interactive and there was really nothing to know since the tool palette surfaced the main functionality. Tools like undo, zoom and snap helped duffers like me accomplish our modest creative aspirations.
In the late 80s and early 90s the rapid progression paint program features was incredible because there were four capable platforms (Amiga, Atari ST, PC, Mac) and each had their own native programs constantly releasing new versions in competition with each other as well as a handful of cross-platform ports. Any good idea or new tool on one platform quickly migrated to the others, often in improved form. And there were also high-end, custom hardware-based paint systems like Quantel's $60,000 paintbox for broadcast graphics creation, In the days when 32 colors at 320 x 200 was a lot, a Paintbox could composite layers of full res, true color video stills using hardware blending. While wildly impressive and beyond the reach of current 16-bit desktops, software developers just viewed it as another aspirational target leading to arcane beam-racing, scanline palette-swapping trickery. It was an intense crucible of evolutionary innovation that was exhilarating to experience.
As PCs advanced to 32-bit CPUs with PCI and AGP busses driving XGA (and beyond) resolutions at 16 and 24-bit depth using graphics cards with 2D drawing acceleration, all the aspirational barriers fell. With 24-bit smart dithering and anti-aliasing enabling smooth gradients and sharp edges, stair-stepped edges and visible pixels became a choice instead of a curse. Then Photoshop emerged as the leader to beat and aspirational target, except that Photoshop became dominant because it expanded to serve previously divergent use cases like photo editing and retouching, graphic design, print layout and typography. Serving these different masters well caused spiraling complexity along with an increasingly modal interface. Professional workflows demanded absolute precision and granular control. The only way forward was segregating pixels into discrete layers and, later, objects. Integrating vector graphics further abstracted away from pixels, entailing final flattening.
It was all wildly powerful and no doubt professionally productive, I used it and certainly appreciated its power but, as a non-daily user, I eventually noticed I was spending more time figuring out how to get it to do what I wanted. Simply doodling around just seemed a lot less fun. Recently I went back and tried Deluxe Paint 5 on an Amiga. It was fun in all the ways I remember but it also isn't something I'd keep doing.
I wonder what other categories of software could you pull this off? For example, I couldn't imagine anyone waxing nostalgic for the UX of an old word processor app.
I can. An old world processor may have a much more keyboard-optimized UX.
Also, there were a lot of thoughtful people working decades ago when old computer technology was new. Thoughtfully designed software from 1989 could probably beat the latest 2025 jank in many ways.
Just a few weeks ago, people on HN were waxing poetic about the Lotus 1-2-3 user interface, as someone ported it to Linux.
This is a very strange sentiment in general, since word processors are pretty much the only retro software that's worth keeping and using today - professional writers often hang onto them. It's especially strange to hear in a place where people routinely use fifty year old text editors.
Next, I need an Amiga emulator that runs on a MacBook Pro ...
[1] - https://archive.org/details/wordworth-7
[2] - http://www.classicamiga.com/content/view/5010/175/
[3] - https://www.aminet.net/search?query=wordworth
And slightly amazing they did a release as recently as 2008.
https://github.com/AnimatorPro/
https://github.com/AnimatorPro/Animator-Pro/tree/f5ed37135ad...
Fun restrictions to work with/around and it has some fun features too. Running in DOS also makes it run everywhere, including on my phone.
Would be happy to use more old DOS software, but I just have not found more that seemed as useful (maybe VGAPaint 386 for a different paint app?). No constant (forced) upgrades to keep up with. I can compromise a lot with features if it means that I can spend years/decades on mastering a tool instead of just barely keeping up with how the latest version works. Learning is much more fun than re-learning. (Guess that is why I always liked Emacs so much.)
Longer Context
Going back to to the early 80s I've always loved playing with computer drawing programs - despite having no real artistic skill. In the 8-bit era, even the best (like Micropainter on the Apple II) were functional yet still fairly primitive. Starting with 16-bit computers and programs like the legendary DeluxePaint, paint software really started to get fun and I could spend hours just doodling around. It was highly interactive and there was really nothing to know since the tool palette surfaced the main functionality. Tools like undo, zoom and snap helped duffers like me accomplish our modest creative aspirations.
In the late 80s and early 90s the rapid progression paint program features was incredible because there were four capable platforms (Amiga, Atari ST, PC, Mac) and each had their own native programs constantly releasing new versions in competition with each other as well as a handful of cross-platform ports. Any good idea or new tool on one platform quickly migrated to the others, often in improved form. And there were also high-end, custom hardware-based paint systems like Quantel's $60,000 paintbox for broadcast graphics creation, In the days when 32 colors at 320 x 200 was a lot, a Paintbox could composite layers of full res, true color video stills using hardware blending. While wildly impressive and beyond the reach of current 16-bit desktops, software developers just viewed it as another aspirational target leading to arcane beam-racing, scanline palette-swapping trickery. It was an intense crucible of evolutionary innovation that was exhilarating to experience.
As PCs advanced to 32-bit CPUs with PCI and AGP busses driving XGA (and beyond) resolutions at 16 and 24-bit depth using graphics cards with 2D drawing acceleration, all the aspirational barriers fell. With 24-bit smart dithering and anti-aliasing enabling smooth gradients and sharp edges, stair-stepped edges and visible pixels became a choice instead of a curse. Then Photoshop emerged as the leader to beat and aspirational target, except that Photoshop became dominant because it expanded to serve previously divergent use cases like photo editing and retouching, graphic design, print layout and typography. Serving these different masters well caused spiraling complexity along with an increasingly modal interface. Professional workflows demanded absolute precision and granular control. The only way forward was segregating pixels into discrete layers and, later, objects. Integrating vector graphics further abstracted away from pixels, entailing final flattening.
It was all wildly powerful and no doubt professionally productive, I used it and certainly appreciated its power but, as a non-daily user, I eventually noticed I was spending more time figuring out how to get it to do what I wanted. Simply doodling around just seemed a lot less fun. Recently I went back and tried Deluxe Paint 5 on an Amiga. It was fun in all the ways I remember but it also isn't something I'd keep doing.