dneary@xxxxxxx (2004-04-22 at 2142.26 +0200): > > > On PotatoShop (forced to used at gunpoint), there are no problems > > > editing this image or other large images. > > Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact > > and it's not trivial to improve. > How, exactly? I've heard this too, but I have no clear idea how > they do so - do they have a similar caching system, and just make > better decisions about what to cache and when? Or do they use OS > specific features to reduce read times for caching operations? > Or perhaps something completely different? One thing that GIMP could do is top to bottom composing, if the blend modes allow it. It will mean that calculations will never be worthless and that only contributing tiles will have to be accessed. That should speed up things and reduce memory usage in some cases. GSR
