Sorry, open-sourcers, but I have to second the emotion on GIMP vs. Photoshop. To say that GIMP's usability isn't in the same ballpark as Photoshop's is putting it mildly...
I used Corel Photo-Paint for years and years, and when I tried Photoshop after that, it seemed like it was designed by space aliens. I don't mean to say that Photo-Paint is easier to use -- I doubt it is. But when you get used to a particular interface for something like photo editing, maybe any given interface is ok, but switching interfaces is hard?
A couple months ago, I had to create some annotated screen shots to be used as cheat sheets by a number of people I'm working with. I knew that I could do something like this in Photoshop, having used Photoshop a bit 10 years ago.
I first tried GIMP, because it was free and available. After trying for a while to figure out how to get layers happening, I finally gave up and downloaded a copy of Photoshop. Everything was immediately intuitive. Even though the Photoshop UI had changed (a lot) from when I had used it a decade ago, I was able to very quickly create my annotated screen shots.
Now, you could say that I didn't bother to read any of the GIMP documentation, and you'd be right. But with Photoshop I didn't have to.
But I don't know if Photoshop would be nicer in that regard , I haven't used that in a long time.
I started with Paint Shop Pro, and what it lacked in features it made up in ease-of-use. I especially liked the ability to mix raster and vector layers; Photoshop still hasn't captured the simplicity and power of PSP's vector layers, IMO (in terms of UI, at least). After I used PSP, I moved on to Photoshop. While it was initially a bit intimidating, my familiarity with PSP quickly helped me overcome this and I was up to speed pretty fast. Fast forward a long time and I try Corel Painter. Its interface is definitely different, but still easy to follow. I picked it up in a few minutes (for some definition of 'picked up').
Then I tried GIMP. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I never got used to it. I can't explain why GIMP doesn't work for me; just that I didn't -- couldn't -- pick it up like I did Photoshop or Painter (or openCanvas for that matter).
How many clients do I look access too, when I can not just use CS3? How much is that worth? $2,300 I spent on CS3 seems cheap in comparison.
If you want converts, GET WINE WORKING! Heck, I will buy windows to have the really DLLs, I just want it to work in Linux.
MACs just work because Mac users that want to run windows, BUY WINDOWS and run it in OS X. There is some software that people ARE willing to pay for it to JUST WORK.
Mac users that want to run Windows buy windows and install it inside of a VM (or dual boot). What's preventing you from doing the same under Linux?
Seconded. Lots of apps run really well in XP with VirtualBox in seamless mode. That's how I test sites against Safari and IE, and I run Visual Studio that way when I need it.
VirtualBox is the reason why I never got around to setting up a Windows partition like I was planning on. Instead, I just reclaimed the space for more files under Linux.
Gimp is a bit old fashioned with it's dozens of little windows, though. I think there is a "make it look like Photoshop" mod of Gimp, actually.
I mean, I hate that ctrl-d duplicates the current work, rather than deselect... but this weekend, I used the ctrl-d multiple times with wild success, so maybe my process is broken :)
I've used Paint.NET pretty heavily over the last 6 months (I use it when I don't want to wait for Photoshop to load) and while it's good for casual use, it is no photoshop/gimp/paintshop pro replacement.