Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: ray <ray@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Jun 2009 03:11:34 GMT
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:46:53 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
On 01-06-09 18:17, ray wrote:
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:18:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
On 31-05-09 21:28, ray wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 15:40:22 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:See my other post. I've installed half a dozen Linux platforms over
On 31-05-09 15:10, ray wrote:Guess you don't use Linux much.
On Sun, 31 May 2009 11:04:22 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:Guess you don't use Mac's much.
On 30-05-09 18:28, jerry wrote:Really? I didn't think Linux was one hundred times better than MAC
how does gimp compare to photoshop?Like most things free compare to most things professionally
developed for demanding non-professional and professional users.
Actually the "quality ratio" of PS:Gimp is about the same as Mac
OS X:Linux.
That is to say about 100:1.
- I'd only say about 1.1.
the past 8 years. Oddly the first lasted the longest as I persevered
in trying to make it work as I required. Then with successive Linux
installs I more quickly reached the decision point where I recognized
that getting what I wanted required much more effort than I was
willing to expend.
Mac OS X, on the other hand is a pure, simple, clean OS that works w/o
fuss or problems. (When I bought the Mac I feared having "Linux like"
issues. Hah! Forget it. Mac OS X _works_.
It really comes down to my time. And my time is a hell of a lot more
valuable than the small fist of dollars saved with a "free" OS that
requires hours and hours of work on the computer and OS and not hours
doing what I require of work _out_ of the computer. I stopped
enjoying computers a long time ago when I stopped designing RT systems
for a living. After that: computer = tool. Nothing more.
Really. You must not be very competent. I've never had to spend large
amounts of time to 'make Linux work'. It simply does. Latest example:
Horsecrap. Every linux install I have done has required a DL of video
drivers and in some cases trying several out before one would work to
the resolution of the screen I use. The resolution (pretty ordinary
these days) at 1680 x 1050 was not in the video sizes of Solaris,
Fedeora and Ubuntu installs, nor was an up to date Nvidia driver.
Didn't have any such issues with aforementioned install of Debian on the
eeepc - it all worked, right out of the box. Also no issues when I changed
to wide screen monitors on two other distros las year. You must be doing
something wrong - perhaps not using 'friendly' distributions.
In every case, I've had to update Firefox and gone through machinations
to install that. Likewise thunderbird.
eeepc for the wife for Christmas. Neither one of us cared much for the
brain damaged version of Xandros, so wiped it and installed Debian -
network install. Put a small file on a USB drive, booted, installed
from the internet. No fuss, no muss, no bother, and no problems since -
it simply works.
If you're content with how it runs right out of the chute, then your
demands on it are pretty light.
Well, I did scientific software support and development at DOD for 30
years - I pretty much know what I need.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- References:
- gimp or photoshop?
- From: jerry
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: ray
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: ray
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: ray
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne
- gimp or photoshop?
- Prev by Date: Re: damsel fly (on the moon)
- Next by Date: Re: Photos of event
- Previous by thread: Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Next by thread: Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|