4.0.22 and Windows 7 “Platform Update”

Edit: This is now in effect for version 4.1. There was no 4.0.22 release — it was renamed to 4.1.

I wanted to give a heads up that the next update for Paint.NET, version 4.0.22, will require that Windows 7 users have something called the “Platform Update” installed. Later versions of Windows, meaning 8.1 and 10, do not need this because they already have what it includes.

If you’re using Windows 7 then you probably already have this installed and I wouldn’t worry about it; Windows Update should have taken care of that a long, long time ago. KB2670838, as it’s called in some circles, is over 5 years old at this point Smile This will be more relevant to folks who are setting up new installations of Windows 7, and is especially important for sequencing of auto-install or deployment scripts, because the Paint.NET installer will not handle the installation of this dependency.

As usual, whenever I add a dependency on a newer OS or .NET or anything, I get people pulling their hair out and asking me “why?!” (okay maybe I’m exaggerating)

In this case, the Platform Update includes significantly updated versions of Direct2D, Direct3D, DirectWrite, Windows Imaging Component (WIC), Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform (WARP), and Windows Animation Manager. Paint.NET uses all of these, and especially the Direct2D v1.1 update brings a lot of new features that will be very beneficial.

One of the projects I’m working on is to use the GPU much more aggressively in Paint.NET. Right now the GPU is mostly just used to blit the canvas and draw decorations on top of it. I’d like to go further, starting with the use of Direct2D v1.1’s effect system for, well, effects.

I’ve got a prototype up and running that surfaces a few of Direct2D’s built-in effects as Paint.NET effects and the performance is very promising, even when using WARP (software rendering). It also appears to automatically work with SLI, although I still need to do some benchmarking to confirm any actual performance increase.

If this works out well then you can expect more use of the GPU throughout Paint.NET as updates trickle out over time.

If you don’t want to go through Windows Update, or if you’re preparing auto-install or deployment stuff, then here’s where to download it:

More information about the Platform Update for Windows 7 can be found here:

P.S. I just realized it’s April 1st … this it not an April fool’s joke Smile


16 thoughts on “ 4.0.22 and Windows 7 “Platform Update”

  1. II ARROWS says:

    “P.S. I just realized it’s April 1st … this it not an April fool’s joke :)”
    Yeah, that’s what everyone say…

  2. says:

    Impossibility to instal 4.1 without “Platform Update” looks like real idiotism!
    I’ll start using “Paint” again, if that problem will be removed.

    • Rick Brewster says:

      Why is this such a problem for you? Next you’ll say you refuse to install Paint.NET updates because I should be able to patch in all new functionality and fixes into the version you already have installed … 😂

      This is literally just a 5 year old Windows Update. It’s needed for the new functionality that was added in Direct2D version 1.1. It enables the GPU-based effects and a whole bunch of other stuff.

      If you refuse to install Windows Updates then I cannot help you. If you want security vulnerabilities and viruses and whatnot, then you’re on your own.

      • says:

        Okay, thanks for explanations, but I try to understand what will be if any different program will require different additions… This is not rational and this is not “V-Ray 4.0” (which does not require any additions with
        complicated 3D rendering). May be desirable to have old versions archive (let and without support for them)?

        • Rick Brewster says:

          It’s only “not rational” because you’re defining it that way and refusing to look into the facts. As I’ve already explained, the Platform Update for Windows 7 is required because of the new capabilities it brings, namely Direct2D 1.1, which is used quite a bit in the new Paint.NET 4.1. It’s an easy update to install, and it’s 5 years old at this point, so I really don’t understand why you’re so adamantly against it. It’s not even a big update, and it doesn’t break anything.

          Paint.NET is not V-Ray, you really can’t compare the two. Maybe V-Ray doesn’t use Direct2D, so it doesn’t need Direct2D 1.1. Simple as that.

          • says:

            Well, I’ll explain: some times Microsoft making their updates “you know how” – that Windows stops to work. After this, me and my clients must strongly sit and strongly think “what’s happening?…to take the cars, ride around the city…, carry the computers…, to be nervous…” On the next update (in a few days) everything is corrected itself.
            So I think, I should not respect the any updates from Microsoft.

            • Rick Brewster says:

              The update is 5 years old. I think you’ve had plenty of time to vet it by now. You can’t live your whole life in fear of the next update. You’ll never make any progress that way. Or you could just stay on Windows 95 forever …

              • says:

                Okay guys, I heard you, you heard me. If to keep a few megabytes of the previous version is relatively expensive, then this can be understood. Any way 4.0.17 I thing is suitable for 95% un bugged results of modeling. )) Thanks for watching, thanks for making conclusions. ))

        • iiarrows says:

          Can I ask you how much do you pay for Paint.Net license to ask for something that probably benefits just you?
          You must be a top client to pretend personalised solutions.
          Usually projects like that cost at least 100 000 $

          • says:

            I agree, but I just give examples. And I do not demand anything. I’m found on my discs 4.0.17 (and it is the result of “updates”).

            • iiarrows says:

              OK then, next point is this:
              V-Ray is an engine, used by professional software and paid, I imagine, big money.
              They can make low-level code, they have resources (time, people and money) to do that.
              Also there are multiple reasons they are not comparable: the whole point of that library is easily to speed up the process, making a compatible version doesn’t hit the point, probably both in results and effort.
              Also, 3D vs 2D is really not the same ballpark, technology involved is extremely different, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but 3D is much easier then 2D.

Comments are closed.