Graphic Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Graphic Design professionals, students, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Gimp is not only free but is also lightweight and resources compared to Photoshop it feels like. Photoshop's long splash screen makes it feel resource heavy with alot of overhead. Is there technical proof of this?
Finally, why would anyone use Photoshop that's resource-heavy when Gimp can do about every post-processing function it can twice as efficient
Well, you could measure a lot of things. Chronometer loading time, disk space, and you could look into the Task manager on your computer and see memory consumption and CPU usage.
Loading time is not a good measure because Adobe has as far as I understand a preloader.
Memory consumption either because a program could load more resources, in fact, to work faster. If you have memory available, why not use it?
In the end, the best way to measure this is you have the work done. Do identical tasks, and feel where you are more comfortable. Probably human-delay times are greater than machine ones, for example thinking what to do next, etc.
Its relatively unimportant. Its not like a person who works with the application for a living ever needs to close it. Hell I do not and I still have photoshop running from like 7 days ago, along with 2 significantly heavier CAD applications*, illustrator and matlab.
Photoshop is used mainly because of the things gimp does not do. Its true that by iterating things that gimp does it does better. But its not what people are after either. Mostly all adobe applications are about the print support. Ability to natively do PDF files with vector support. And in case of photoshop the killer features are elsewhere like nondestructive edits design layers automated foregound detection etc.
* though creo which is significantly more rescource hungry than PS in general can be tuned to open in 2 seconds faster than PS because the license is on local network.
