Talk:MacPaint

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: OSX?

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Short life span 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DazzleDraw 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: April 2008 GA Review

message: 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)
thread_title: MS Paintbrush 3.0 takes after MacPaint 1.0?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Historical significance

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tone and Elaboration Issue