Photoshop vs Gimp

[Deleter]

Well since im not a gfx aficiando, gimp is all I need. But cost is mostly what drives me here :cash: I've never had the money to buy it and I don't care for stealing softy. If I was more into graphics I would probably check out photoshop. As it is I've never needed gimp to do anything that it couldn't. And it doesnt act sluggish on xp for me, so I dunno what you're talking about.

[Skyler]

*sigh* So I'm not an exception after all.

[Mech1031]

don't flatter yourself. exceptions can include more than one person

and i know plenty of people who it runs slow for.

[Skyler]

Maybe they're the exception.

P.S. This is Gimp:

[Mech1031]

...nah, i'm pretty sure it's the other way around. so far it's basically everyone at my college versus you two.

P.S. This is Photoshop:

(Source: here

Also: I'm honestly not ripping on Gimp acting like it's shit. It's a decent graphics program, but it's just not as good as Photoshop is. And before you argue that point, then ask yourself why would Photoshop be the industry standard if Gimp is just as good, and free?

Because it isn't, and it won't be. Adobe has a huge team of developers who get paid to do their jobs, and they do them very very well. Gimp has a team of people who contribute to it's software on a regular basis, but they all aren't collaborating together. Features are being added left and right from completely different people. It just doesn't integrate as well.

[Skyler]

But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.

[Mech1031]

I forgot Adobe doesn't test their products or have 24/7 tech support to report bugs and get instant feedback through email. I also forgot they release their product without looking it over about a million times to make sure everything runs properly and efficiently.

I guess if they did that they'd be professional or something.

[LooseCaboose]

But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.

You hear this code checking, and many eyes stuff about open source projects all the time and how much better it is than closed source. But quite honestly, its often a load of rubbish. A large amount of open source code is submitted by people who aren't being payed to do it. They don't want to spend their spare time reading other peoples code just to see if they can spot any obscure bugs. In house development, on the other hand, typically has people being payed to systematically do code reviews and testing. So while open source has many people who could look at the source if they were so inclined, closed source has a few people who are looking at the source because they are payed to do so.

Software development companies are also much better equipped for rigorous testing. If an open source developer made some changes to the input handling in the Gimp, they would either have to own several hundred different input devices to test it, or wait until others who have that hardware can test it for them. A company like Adobe will have many of those hardware devices in their testing areas.

[RADIUM-V Interactive]

But Gimp has more people checking and double-checking and triple-checking the code than Photoshop.

How often have you said "Argh! I can't use Photoshop because the floating-point variables for the run-time module were corrupted at compile!"

Unless the code is sitting on your face, you can't say which one's code is more complete.

[zoasterboy]

I like how this turned into a battle over coding philosophies. :b