You have choice. I run both Windows and Linux on the same computer. It's not hard. I can't think of anything more backward than deciding what application software to run based on the OS. An OS exists to support application software. If it doesn't then it has no reason to exist. I don't care what OS I'm using -- I can't process a photo with an OS.

No matter how good you get using GIMP, you have to do more work for the same result. Biggest problem with GIMP is you often lack visual feedback in process. You have to commit an action to see the result and then evaluate if the result is acceptable -- if not you have to try again. That is so bogus.

The cost argument is silly. I like many here have multiple cameras. That's thousands of $$$. Add in the lenses and how could I possibly complain about my software cost at around $150.00 per year. If I can't afford the software I have no business affording the cameras.

Choosing to use an editor like GIMP increases your requirement for disk storage substantially in order to save your work. That's a hidden cost. GIMP is expensive to use.

You have choice. I run both Windows and Linux on the same computer. It's not hard. I can't think of anything more backward than deciding what application software to run based on the OS. An OS exists to support application software. If it doesn't then it has no reason to exist. I don't care what OS I'm using -- I can't process a photo with an OS.

No matter how good you get using GIMP, you have to do more work for the same result. Biggest problem with GIMP is you often lack visual feedback in process. You have to commit an action to see the result and then evaluate if the result is acceptable -- if not you have to try again. That is so bogus.

The cost argument is silly. I like many here have multiple cameras. That's thousands of $$$. Add in the lenses and how could I possibly complain about my software cost at around $150.00 per year. If I can't afford the software I have no business affording the cameras.

Choosing to use an editor like GIMP increases your requirement for disk storage substantially in order to save your work. That's a hidden cost. GIMP is expensive to use.

I would imagine most users on this forum aren't professional photographers. I chose Linux long before I became interested in photography, so my choice of operating system wasn't dependent on a few applications I may run for a hobby. It's great that you figured out how to dual boot or run a VM of Windows/Linux, but it's not everyone's choice, it's your choice.

But you will pick apart anyone and everyone that chooses to use something other than what you think is ideal. The reality is, some of us choose open source software and we learn our own methods and processes and are pretty happy doing it.

You have choice. I run both Windows and Linux on the same computer. It's not hard. I can't think of anything more backward than deciding what application software to run based on the OS. An OS exists to support application software. If it doesn't then it has no reason to exist. I don't care what OS I'm using -- I can't process a photo with an OS.

No matter how good you get using GIMP, you have to do more work for the same result. Biggest problem with GIMP is you often lack visual feedback in process. You have to commit an action to see the result and then evaluate if the result is acceptable -- if not you have to try again. That is so bogus.

The cost argument is silly. I like many here have multiple cameras. That's thousands of $$$. Add in the lenses and how could I possibly complain about my software cost at around $150.00 per year. If I can't afford the software I have no business affording the cameras.

Choosing to use an editor like GIMP increases your requirement for disk storage substantially in order to save your work. That's a hidden cost. GIMP is expensive to use.

I've read 10 pages! I didn't find posts suggesting the $10 plan had bad software in it. Nor did anyone write that it was overpriced. Compared to film or even coffee, it is pretty cheap. At least fair!

The objection is always about the business model of subscriptions. One of the results is that Adobe went from a revenue rollercoaster to a steady stream. Why is that important? It makes software development planning a predictable and budgetable process. We photographers benefit.

There is a no cost and legitimate way to get the full suite at no charge. Adobe has a system of forums that work nearly the same as UHH. Users exchange tips and solutions. Anyone can participate. It is fun and I always learn a lot. If you like it and apply (or maybe be invited) you can become an "ACP" or "Adobe Community Professional". You agree to try post about once a day to help someone out. In exchange Adobe provides you the full Creative Cloud suite.

You have choice. I run both Windows and Linux on the same computer. It's not hard. I can't think of anything more backward than deciding what application software to run based on the OS. An OS exists to support application software. If it doesn't then it has no reason to exist. I don't care what OS I'm using -- I can't process a photo with an OS.

No matter how good you get using GIMP, you have to do more work for the same result. Biggest problem with GIMP is you often lack visual feedback in process. You have to commit an action to see the result and then evaluate if the result is acceptable -- if not you have to try again. That is so bogus.

The cost argument is silly. I like many here have multiple cameras. That's thousands of $$$. Add in the lenses and how could I possibly complain about my software cost at around $150.00 per year. If I can't afford the software I have no business affording the cameras.

Choosing to use an editor like GIMP increases your requirement for disk storage substantially in order to save your work. That's a hidden cost. GIMP is expensive to use.