# Talk:MacPaint

Does anybody know whether MacPaint will run under Classic in OSX? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.220.227 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 June 2006  (UTC-8)

No, it doesn't. But version 2.0 does. — Wackymacs 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.213.115.247 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 June 2006  (UTC-8)

 
According to Andy Hertzfeld on nerdtv, the Mac Paint sourcecode was released to the Computer History Museum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.172.97.63 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 September 2005  (UTC-8)
I don't care to edit the opening paragraphs, but some notes:
1) Fullpaint (Ann Arbor Softworks?) was a major improvement over MacPaint. SuperPaint (Silicon Beach) was a step ... sideways.
1a) Comicworks is probably worth mentioning.
1b) Thunderscan (which allowed you to scan in images using a modified ImageWriter) was an early tool for many Mac artists. Although only 1-bit image editing tools existed at the time, Thunderscan actually captured 5-bit grayscale data and allowed you to perform simple brighten/darken/contrast operations before rendering out to 1-bit for further editing in a program like MacPaint.
1c) MacPaint 2.0 eventually replicated MacPaint's good points, but addressed its failings (e.g. fixed window size).
1d) ClarisWorks and AppleWorks eventually incorporated MacPaint's functionality and something of its interface (plus color)
1e) Claris much later released Brushstrokes, a semi-competent clone of Studio/32.
2) Digital Darkroom (Silicon Beach) was the first attempt to do a Photo retouching program on the Mac (that I know of). It was greyscale only.
2a) ImageWorks (Letraset, 1990?) was another greyscale image editor predating Photoshop.
2b) ColorStudio (Letraset, 1993?) gave Photoshop a run for its money in the early days, and had some advanced features that Photoshop still hasn't matched (e.g. you could write your own filters in its internal scripting language, much as you can today with programs like Final Cut Pro).
2c) Fractal Painter (now a Corel product) introduced a lot of concepts that Photoshop eventually imitated, including layers (Painter 2).
3) Studio/8 and Studio/32 (from EA) were probably the finest color paint programs ever released for the Mac (or any other platform; these were done by the same people who did DeluxePaint on other platforms).
3a) Studio/32 remained in use for many years within EA after they stopped selling it (1992?). I still use it, and it works fine under Classic. It remains unsurpassed for detailed bitmap editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.180.85.192 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 14 September 2005  (UTC-8)

Very interesting to be sure, but not all that relevant to the article. If you want to start a comparison of bitmap editing software applications then this stuff might find a home there, but this article is about MacPaint. The others that do get mentioned at present are really only in passing to act as an indication of what MacPaint quickly needed to compete against, but didn't. Graham 09:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Could the resolution have possibly been 576x720? Shouldn't it be 720x576?? Dan 03:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it was 576 (wide) by 720 (tall), which is the size of a US Letter sheet of paper at 72 dots per inch, oriented vertically (portrait). This was the size of the papaer intended to be used by the ImageWiter printer. I think Macwrite 2.0 changed this so that the drawing was made the size and orientation of the current paper choice in the Printer Setup dialog. Graham 23:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This is something that tends to be forgotten when talking about the early Mac. WYSYWYG was originally meant to be taken literally. WYS was not just fonts, styles and so on, but the on screen size was meant to match the final printout. The original Mac and ImageWriter printer was an integrated system, and until the mid-90s, Mac monitors were fixed resolution. As other printers came out for the Mac and multisync monitors were introducted, the size thing fell by the wayside and WYSIWYG was mostly used when talking about HTML editors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As of 2004, MacPaint 1.5 and 2.0 were still being sold by Sun Remarketing. Despite a short life span...
In what software universe is 20 years a short life span? -Will Beback 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it was released in 1984, with the last version released in 1988. I doubt if it remained on the market any later than 1990. It hasn't been on the market for over a decade. (Sun Remarketing's old stock doesn't count, since it was being sold as discontinued. Besides, Sun Remarketing is now dead.) -- tooki 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These sentences seem problematic: "MacPaint inspired other companies to release similar products for the IBM PC platform.[17] Some of these included Broderbund's DazzleDraw for the Apple II, which cost US$50." I don't think Broderbund's DazzleDraw for the Apple II is an example of a similar product for the IBM PC platform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.73.182 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 

I removed the following as it does not fit in with the article and adds nothing to it. Maybe it belongs in an article describing some of the first commercial paint programs.
"The first real improvement was FullPaint by Ann Arbor Softworks, then SuperPaint by Silicon Beach Software (the first combined vector and painting program), PixelPaint by Supermac Technology (the first color-capable paint program) and eventually Adobe Systems introduced Photoshop around the same time Apple debuted the Macintosh IIfx."

The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:
1. It is well written. In this respect: 

Overall, there are few errors with respect to prose and/or grammar.
There are some section contents that seem out of place.  For example, in the “Development” subsection you begin to discuss what seem to me to be some unique technical characteristics of the software (the utilization of a two-buffer system, for example) that just don’t seem to fit into the section title.  Information like that would seem to be more appropriate in a section titled “Software characteristics” or “Features” or something along those lines.
I would like to see a change in the section heading organization.  I think that rather then have a “History” section subdivided into 3 subsections, followed by a “Version History” section (which seems rather redundant), I think that you can remove the “History” section header and instead have each of the remaining subsection headings become section headings (ie, promote Development, Release, and Later Versions from subsections to sections).
Also, what would you think about the integration of the “Version History” table into one of the other sections, such as “Later Versions” or “Software Development.”
How about moving the last paragraph of the “Release” section into a new section entitled “Influence” so we can see the influence of the software.
Done. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary to mention that Ramsey was fired in 1989 and why he was fired?  It just doesn’t seem to be applicable to the content of this article.
Removed. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: 

All of the major statements are supported with citations from appropriate sources.
Citations appear correct and their formatting is consistent throughout the article
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: 

I think there needs to be some discussion on what file formats the software was capable of saving in.  Did it only output in *.BMP?
I would like to see some additional information, if its available, provide the dates that tech support or sales for each version ended and have this information be added to the “Version History” table for each respective version.
That sort of information is not available. I had enough trouble getting the version numbers for the table. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Does the article maintain Neutrality?

Overall, yes.
Minor NPOV issue in the wording of this statement: “Editing in this mode was extremely easy, and set the standard for many future editors” in the Development section.  Maybe tone it down a little bit to make it sound like less of an endorsement of the software.
Fixed. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
5. It is stable.  In this respect, it:

It is stable.  There are no recent edit wars or rampant vandalism on this page.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.  In this respect: 

There is one image included with the application.  It has valid fair use reasoning’s attached to it.
In conclusion, this article has greatly improved over the past several weeks.  Great job on the improvements.  With the article as it now stands, I am going to place this article  on hold   until the above issues are addressed, after which time I’ll be happy to pass this article to GA.  will381796 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At the request of the primary contributor, I am placing this article on hold for two weeks (until May 15th) after which time, I will check over the article and make a final decision regarding GA promotion. will381796 (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The changes look good thus far.  I'm going to go ahead and promote this to GA.  I hope to see further improvements on this article because its come a long way in a pretty short period of time. will381796 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 
I couldn't help but notice that these two apps seem more similar than different. Even the toolbox has the same layout - with clipping tools on top and shapes on bottom, and how the color picker shows the currently selected foreground and background colors. No Goodies menu on Paintbrush though.
Coincidence?--Anss123 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MacPaint was a killer app – people's reason for buying a Mac. (This is according to documentary Triumph of the Nerds, but there must be easier-to-cite sources.) MacPaint also had a revolutionary user interface and is the cited source for several interaction design patterns. This second perspective is mentioned briefly under MacPaint#Influence but both need more emphasis.
Accordingly, I adjusted the computing importance to mid and the software importance to high.--Pnm (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I see this tag still remains along with the issues presented above. It is quite possible that the lack of this information will cause the article to fail the broadness criteria of the Good article criteria and a reassessment may be in order. AIRcorn (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel the following sentences are flawed: 
There has been an unofficial update called MacPaint X which is 3.0 beta, mainly for people who wished to be able to use the program. Though it is unstable, it brings back memories for many. 
The article doesn't really explain the significance of the unofficial update, who made it, and why/when it was made. In addition the bolded text feels very out of place on Wikipedia, resembling more of a nostalgic retrospective than is appropriate for Wikipedia. 129.110.242.100 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also missing a reference. Adding one, however, and updating the copy which appears to have misleading version info. It appears to be abandoned, so not quite relevant today as a successor. Ccsccs7 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)