Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: Alan Browne <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:46:53 -0400
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 the
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
That is to say about 100:1.
I'd only say about 1.1.
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
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.
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
If you're content with how it runs right out of the chute, then your demands on it are pretty light.
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- From: ray
- Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Prev by Date: Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Next by Date: Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Previous by thread: Re: gimp or photoshop?
- Next by thread: Re: gimp or photoshop?