[HN Gopher] Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of ...
___________________________________________________________________
Multipaint: Draw pictures with color limitations of 8-bit and
16-bit platforms
Author : doener
Score : 37 points
Date : 2025-04-15 23:01 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (multipaint.kameli.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (multipaint.kameli.net)
| waltbosz wrote:
| 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.
| atrus wrote:
| Oh you'd be surprised haha, I see lots of older writers missing
| the older word processors.
| drewser42 wrote:
| George R.R. Martin famously writes his novels on DOS with
| WordStar.
| palmotea wrote:
| > 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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I wonder what other categories of software could you pull this
| off?_
|
| 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.
| cestith wrote:
| 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).
| plastic3169 wrote:
| Like vi(m) or emacs?
| yoz-y wrote:
| T602
| cestith wrote:
| 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.
| justin66 wrote:
| > 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.
| rikroots wrote:
| 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 ...
|
| [1] - https://archive.org/details/wordworth-7
|
| [2] - http://www.classicamiga.com/content/view/5010/175/
|
| [3] - https://www.aminet.net/search?query=wordworth
| justin66 wrote:
| Neat!
|
| And slightly amazing they did a release as recently as
| 2008.
| 2mlWQbCK wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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. (Guess
| that is why I always liked Emacs so much.)
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| 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)?
| sedatk wrote:
| Also, does it take other limitations of the platforms (such as
| two colors per 8x8 grid on Spectrums and similar limitations on
| C64 etc) into account?
| mrandish wrote:
| 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. To be clear, I'm not necessarily looking for the creative
| constraints of retro pixel art resolutions and color limitations,
| I just want to recapture that feeling of discoverable,
| interactive, creative power being made accessible for unskilled,
| non-artists. Kind of where the 90s paint programs felt like they
| were headed before the complexity, precision and specialization
| of later Photoshop took over.
|
| _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 of paint
| programs was incredible. 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.
| 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, which lead to arcane beam-racing, scanline
| palette-swapping trickery which got surprisingly close to a
| Paintbox. That whole era in paint software was an intense
| crucible of evolutionary innovation that was exhilarating to
| experience as a user.
|
| 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 earlier
| hardware barriers fell. With 24-bit dithering and anti-aliasing
| enabling smooth gradients and sharp edges, stair-stepped edges
| and visible pixels became a choice instead of a limitation. Then
| Photoshop emerged as the market leader, except that Photoshop
| became so 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 triggered spiraling complexity along with an increasingly
| modal do-everything-for-everyone interface. Professional
| workflows demanded absolute precision and granular control. That
| dictated segregating pixels into discrete layers, objects and,
| eventually, 'smart' objects. Integrating vector graphics further
| continued the abstractions away from concrete pixels.
|
| It was all wildly powerful and no doubt professionally productive
| but the focus was clearly on enabling any desired end result as
| efficiently as possible with little regard for user's enjoyment
| while doing so. I used Photoshop and 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, and
| sometimes even what mode I was in, than putting down pixels.
| Simply doodling around 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 didn't scratch the itch I've been
| feeling. I'm not looking to experience the creative constraints
| of retro pixel art resolutions and color limitations, I just want
| that feeling of interactive, discoverable, creative power for
| unskilled non-artists. Are there still tools out there targeting
| that use case?
| breakyerself wrote:
| Does it support transparency? Might be fun to make sprites and/or
| textures with this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-18 23:01 UTC)