To be honest Paint.NET fails on all counts, many because of the .NET aspect: - It starts up in what I'm eyeballing to be around 750ms on my computer, which is

To be honest Paint.NET fails on all counts, many because of the .NET aspect: - It starts up in what I'm eyeballing to be around 750ms on my computer, which is I guess common these days, but nothing like Paint (which looks practically instant to me). And on a machine with a hard disk (yes, these still exist, and I know people who have them and would need to use something like this on them) I'm projecting a much longer startup time, at least for a cold start. - It doesn't quite look or feel native, but explaining this is like trying to explain the different between Arial and Verdana in a comment box. :-) You just have to be able to see it and notice the subtle UI transitions, and if you're the kind that doesn't notice, then more power to you... unfortunately some of us can't "un-see" these now. ;) I'd say the "look" part might be visible to you in the font smoothing in [1], which makes me want to poke my eyes out; the "feel" part I can't really show, but the buttons just don't animate the same. This is all because .NET just never looks or feels quite native. This becomes more of an issue when tools meant to deal with Win32 windows fail to work with "custom" windows, but I don't have an example off-hand. - It's not something I'd say my grandma can use. There are 4 separate tool windows and 7 menus with a History panel and a "Hardness" control and such (never mind "resampling" and all that)... all of which is pretty confusing/foreign and quite a cognitive overload compared to Paint for someone who's used to that. So I'd have a much harder time guiding people through using Paint.NET than Paint. [1] http://imgur.com/hIIHq2x http://imgur.com/hIIHq2x