Free online image editors are nothing new. They are extremely useful for those of us who need simple photo editing, and can't (or don't feel like) opening Photoshop, GIMP or any other image editing software.
I've been using Pixoh (AKA Snipshot) for a long time now, and it's quite fun and useful. There's also Picnik, which is rather popular, FotoFlexer and many many more (see list at the bottom of the post).
And now comes storming the very cool, sleek and fast online image editor, named Pixlr. With such an annoying Web 2.0 name, I didn't really expect much of it. But Pixlr is surprisingly good.
The first thing you might notice is how extremely fast Pixlr is. It loaded in 2 seconds, maybe even less. The interface is very comfortable to anyone who has used any kind of image editing software. The toolbars on the left and on the right are reminiscent of Photoshop's toolbar - only they are a lot simpler and with fewer functions.
I tested Pixlr, which is Flash-based, in Firefox and encountered no errors or problems. The features are rather impressive for a free online image editor. You can even work with layers, if you know how.
A serious flaw is the absence of a Text tool. I mean, the application is very impressive and efficient, with many features - a text tool is really mandatory. Another limitation - you can only save your files as JPEG or PNG.
All in all - Pixlr is a wonderful free online image editor, and it's definitely going on my favorites list. I hope it improves and at the same time stays quick and easy to use. Well done, guys!
A list of free online image editors:
Monday, August 18, 2008
Pixlr: The New and Hot Online Image Editor
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Why I Kicked AVG out of my Computer
Disgusted, I got rid of AVG 8.0, about 20 minutes after I installed it. I am now working with (and enjoying) the Comodo anti-virus freeware. And why? Here ya go:
Freeware isn't a new thing on the web and in the computer world. A freeware is a software that's fully functional for an unlimited time with no monetary cost. In the beginning, those were usually nice-to-have software and apps, but most of the "important" or "good" software was either shareware or something you had to buy.
All this has changed, naturally, since the term Open Source has become a part of the mainstream. A lot of companies understood that it's in their interest to provide freeware alongside with other products, that you need to actually buy.
So, we have free-everything: from games to word processors, from PDF readers to anti-virus. You can have a computer and not pay one cent for software - from the OS down.
My first free anti-virus
Grisoft was a company that "got it". A few years back they released AVG anti-virus - a completely free anti-virus software that came as a huge relief to all the Norton and Mcafee victims.
Symantec and Mcafee have dominated the PC security market for years - mainly because there was no one else around. Norton was a synonym to anti-virus, but somewhere along the line it became a heavy, stupid, controlling and annoying product. You could hardly get rid of it - and it cost too much for its worth.
AVG was the first free anti-virus software that I tried, and for years it did a very good job. I installed it on many computers - and my friends, family and other users were very happy with it. It was lightweight, efficient and invisible. A classic.
The upgrade cometh
A while ago I started getting annoying pop-ups whenever I updated AVG, nagging me to upgrade to version 8.0. As usual, I didn't hurry it up. I waited about a month and only then, warily, decided to upgrade.
The installation was quick as usual. I noticed that the icon of the product got a new design, and the colors were suspiciously reminiscent of those belonging to a certain software giant we all know and hate. But that's not a reason to kick out an anti-virus.
The new interface wasn't better than the old one. Just more flashy. But that's not a reason to kick out an anti-virus.
I noticed that the memory consumption of the AVG 8.0 is larger than the one of the older version. Strike one.
Then, I opened my Firefox and searched for something in Google. And lo and behold, out of nowhere, strange signs began to appear next to each result. At first I thought Google flipped or something, but then I realized it was AVG - checking each link in a slow, annoying way, and informing me if it's "safe" or not. REALLY! Strike two.
I immediately went to disable this highly-annoying feature. AVG wasn't happy. Now, instead of the usual, colorful icon in my system tray, I got an exclamation mark! BAD GIRL! You disabled a new feature! We like that feature! As a punishment, you will get an exclamation mark and won't be able to see the true status of your anti-virus.
STRIKE THREE. YOU'RE OUT, AVG!
I mean, OK, I know it's a freeware. I am not paying a dime for it. I can't complain.
First of all, I CAN complain - because I have a blog and it's a great platform for it :). Secondly, if I want to disable a feature, that doesn't mean you have to render the software annoying and practically useless! And thirdly - the fact that there IS competition in the freeware market, and the fact that there is ALWAYS a replacement for anything, should indeed make Grisoft think long and hard before they make their software unfriendly.
I am not the only one that ditched AVG 8.0 - it's all over the web now.
I personally put in Comodo Antivirus 2.0 (beta) and I'm very happy with it. I also use their firewall, which is very good. There are plenty of others to choose from. Grisoft just lost a customer, and I'm guessing it won't be the last.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Surprise of Stardust
It's been a while since I have seen a really good movie. I go to the cinema almost every week, sometimes twice a week, but if you ask me "When was the last time you saw a really good movie", I'll have a hard time remembering.
I loved Borat and Hairspray, Transformers was pretty cool... And that's about it. Since Lord of the Rings, I can't recall a movie that really left an impression, or that made me want to see it again.
It's getting worse when talking about sci-fi and fantasy movies. The choices there are slim to begin with, and the performance is lame, most of the time. Eragon and Bridge to Terabithia are just two examples of shallow, unimpressive movies.
That's why I went to see Stardust with very few expectations. The very impressive cast (Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sienna Miller, Charlie Cox etc.) only made me even more suspicious. Such an amount of heavy hitters is usually a recipe for failure (Shh, don't say "Kingdom of Heaven", ok?).
Actually, I didn't hear a thing about this movie until I saw that there's a screening of it in one of our local theaters. Which was also weird - I see a lot of trailers online and in the cinema, and I didn't recall seeing anything about Stardust.
The bottom line is that it's always good to have low expectations. Stardust really caught me by surprise - and I enjoyed it immensely. It's a fun movie, that doesn't take itself very seriously and has a lovely storyline, full of action and humor. The actors are excellent. De Niro gives a hilarious performance (I won't spoil it for you - I'll just say he's not what he seems at first), Pfeiffer plays a wonderful evil witch and Charlie Cox gives the fresh and young touch. I am not much of a fan of Claire Danes, but she wasn't all bad, either.
The plot isn't all that sophisticated: "In a countryside town bordering on a magical land, a young man makes a promise to his beloved that he'll retrieve a fallen star by venturing into the magical realm". Your basic Quest-For-Love kind of thing. It's not about CGI and special effects, either, but mostly about the humor, the fun and the lightness of it all.
Mostly it reminded me of The Princess Bride, which became a real cult movie over the years. Stardust isn't an epic of the kind of LOTR, but it's a movie I would love to see again - if only for the wittiness and De Niro's performance.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Harry Potter - The Leak was Real , The Book is Awful
(I published this post on July 21st, 2007, in another blog. I moved it here)
Now that the "real" Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is out, we know that the leak that set the net on fire - was real.
Scholastic was all over the place, trying to remove spoilers and torrents of the book on one hand, and on the other hand - claiming that the book wasn't real. All of this didn't prevent tens of thousands of downloads - maybe even more. Every time a torrent disappeared, another appeared, and anyone who wanted to know what happens without buying the book - could do that, easily.
Rowling was "shocked" that the New York Times "dared" to publish a review of the book before the release. Shocked, are you now? The paper bought a legit book ahead of the "sacred" time of release and revealed astonishing spoilers, like the fact that 6 characters are going to die. OH! How awful! The Horror! How dare they?!? I am guessing the NY times figured they didn't owe Rowling a thing, and they were perfectly right. I don't suppose Scholastic will sue THEM. No, they are going after the small retailers and people like Michael Arrington.
Some of their threats worked, by the way, and a lot of articles about the leak were removed - for no real good reason but the threats themselves. Still, you can't win a battle like that on the net. Those who wanted the information - got it, and without much of a hassle.
Some amazingly dedicated people, sat down and TYPED the whole thing from the pictures, and created a PDF file, for all to read and enjoy.
But that is the main problem, isn't it? The book isn't enjoyable. It's a long, boring, half-plagiarized piece of junk, desperately trying to tie all the loose ends of the entire series, and failing miserably. Large parts of the book are boring, non-contributing dialogs. There is plenty of chatter between the characters, that doesn't really add anything to the plot or character development.
The critics that I read so far loved the book. I thought it was a pathetic soap-opera, not even fit for paper-back. If you don't feel like reading the review, I'll sum it up for you: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a boring, unworthy book. Spend your money on a better product. And this is why:
George Loses an Ear - Fred Loses a Life
The deaths were completely random, and most of them meant nothing serious to the story. Seems like Rowling thought: "Well, I said there would be many deaths, I need to keep my hype, let's see...". I suppose she was trying to make some point about how death is random and meaningless in time of evil, but if that's true, she really didn't kill any important characters. I mean, Tonks? Lupin? They die, while inexperienced magic-kids like Luna Lovegood stay alive? Most of the deaths were of adults, despite the fact that the kids were in harm's way all along.
Can you say "The One Ring"?
The locket-horcrux scenes were completely Lord of the Ring, without a hint of shame. Wearing the locket makes the trio (Harry, Hermione and Ron) upset and irritable. The weight of it seems heavy on them. When Harry dives into a pool to get the sword of Griffyndor, the chain of the locket tries to kill him. Sounds familiar? And when they try to destroy the locket with the sword, the locket reveals an EYE who SPEAKS to them and tries to frighten them. Now, where did I read and see that before?
Come in, Voldemort, I hear you loud and clear
In order to make things easier for her, Rowling opened the connection between Harry and Voldy. Anytime the trio wants to know what Voldemort is doing, Harry blinks and he is inside Voldemort's head. Easy, convenient, no need for REAL intel, and speeds up things. A real p2p, if you want. Also, most of the solutions to the problems encountered by Harry and his buddies, come to Harry's mind all of the sudden. Not because he has found some info about it. Just because "it came to him", "he found the answer". For a wizard that knows so very little about his own world, that's quite an accomplishment.
No need to kill
Yes, a disarming spell is what wins the battle. The all-famous Expelliarmus. Sure, in times of war, you don't really need to kill. Let the evil forces do THAT. WE will stun them! In fact (and correct me if I am wrong) Harry, the pure soul of heaven, doesn't kill anyone at all. Even Voldy dies of his own curse, firing back at him because the wand didn't fit him well enough.
The sticky ending
The book itself has no flow and rhythm. It skips between broken plot lines, trying to fix the holes of the entire series. Harry is almost dead in so many parts of the text, you sort of lose interest near the end. Oh, and of course - he doesn't really die because he CHOSE to die. Naturally. And Snape was loyal to Dumbledore for 16 years because he was in love with Lily. That's really believable.The Epilogue sums it all up in the tackiest way - all was well.
Harry marries Ginny, Ron marries Hermione, Neville becomes a professor. All is well really. No one knows what they are actually DOING with their lives, but that's OK. Who cares, as long as they all have 2-3 kids.Rowling promised that this will be that last book, but the ending and the epilogue leave a HUGE opening for 2-3 more books, easy. Not really surprising, isn't it?
Oh, and one more thing - in a book about magic and lore, about witches and wizards and spells and potions - why do people keep saying "Oh my God"?
Posts
My name is 
2 comments:
Post a Comment