OS opinions

Jack burton

Hey just want to get a few views on this and see what everyone else thinks

Right now im running Windows 7 64 bit and its expiring next month. I'm just wondering if i should stick with windows or go for another os? I've used macs in the past and not a fan of them, I'd like to give Ubunto or Fedora a try but there just 1 problem.

I do a lot of graphic design etc and just wondering is there a hastle free way of getting photoshop etc running on linux based os's, using wine or whatever.

Just want to know if anyone else has done this or has any tips for me

thanks

Khannie

Pretty sure there's a linux version of photoshop these days. Alternatively there's GIMP which is very powerful. And gimpshop for people who are used to photoshop.

You can try out linux / ubuntu in a virtual machine on your windows box first. If you're interested in linux I think that's worth doing anyway. I've been windows free for about 3 or 4 years now (I think). I find doing stuff in windows frustratingly slow now.

edit: Here's a link to a free ubuntu virtual machine. You can get the vmplayer tool here.

DarrenMSP

Khannie wrote: »

Pretty sure there's a linux version of photoshop these days.

Nope there isn't

Khannie wrote: »

Alternatively there's GIMP which is very powerful. And gimpshop for people who are used to photoshop.

Not very good to be honest if your job is a graphics designer, it lacks the power of photoshop.

I use all 3 major OSes, OS X (I'd be on your side with not it's biggest fan), Ubuntu and Windows 7 daily and I'd personally say stay with Windows 7, its Solid OS Eps the 64bit one and has great features.

Jack burton

Yeah i have the 64 bit running at the moment, some kinks in it though, but it is an evaluation copy, if i were to get windows 7, it would be pro 64 bit, dont see the point in getting ultimate when i dont really need the extra features

Bob_Harris

As great as the whole open source thing is, Linux will eventually show you it's weaknesses, it's limitations and it's annoyances.

GIMP / GIMPShop is not a scratch on Photoshop CS3 / CS4.

Windows 7 32bit or 64bit is worth the investment I'd say.

Bob_Harris

Khannie wrote: »

edit: Here's a link to a free ubuntu virtual machine. You can get the vmplayer tool here.

Just remember that the above is a virtual machine and will run as intended.

If your machine has hardware Linux doesn't like (a lot of ATI cards at this stage, TV cards etc) then an actual physical installation will be a less than satisfactory experience.

Erper

Jack burton wrote: »

Hey just want to get a few views on this and see what everyone else thinks

Right now im running Windows 7 64 bit and its expiring next month. I'm just wondering if i should stick with windows or go for another os? I've used macs in the past and not a fan of them, I'd like to give Ubunto or Fedora a try but there just 1 problem.

I do a lot of graphic design etc and just wondering is there a hastle free way of getting photoshop etc running on linux based os's, using wine or whatever.

Just want to know if anyone else has done this or has any tips for me

thanks

if u dont play games, go for openSUSE 11.x version... its very nice OS and its free

Inspector Gadget

If Photoshop and similar apps are your game, then your choices are Windows or OS X, period. Wine/Crossover/all the other things people use to get Windows apps running under Linux are a waste of time, especially for apps you'll be using as your bread and butter, as it'll be slow and more prone to crashes.

(Before the Linux brigade settle their backsides into the saddles of their high horses and begin their charge, I am not suggesting Linux is either unstable or slow. I'm talking about Wine and their ilk. It stands to reason that a program running in an emulated environment will suffer a performance overhead, and that the odds of the emulated system being less buggy than an actual copy of Windows, in all fairness, is unlikely. Having said that, X-windows is still not as snappy as other systems, despite AIGLX/Compiz/etc.)

Really, the remaining factors are cost, familiarity, and Adobe's love-hate relationship with Apple.

Firstly, a high-performance PC is typically less than a high-performance Mac (though the margins are tightish these days, and if you want an eight-core monster workstation, it's easier to buy Apple). Also, you can custom build a PC should you so wish.

If you're familiar with Windows for your workflow, then the difference between using the Ctrl key and the Cmd key for keyboard shortcuts is likely to infuriate you for quite a while. If you can live with that, check out what some cool stuff like Automator can do to help take the drudgery out some everyday tasks.

Finally, there's a philosophical difference between Apple and Microsoft when it comes to API support in their OSes, which has caused no end of problems for Apple users. Basically, Microsoft typically favours the "kitchen sink" approach, in an attempt to maximize the number of apps that will work on a given version of Windows, whereas Apple and Adobe have been at loggerheads from time to time over support for various programming APIs, meaning that some versions of OSX support some versions of Photoshop etc. on some platforms, and not on others. It's messy, and if you're interested, this article covers the important bits.

My 2c is that on many levels the safest bet is Windows. How and ever, assuming Apple and Adobe don't have any more fisticuffs, and Apple don't announce they're jumping to Arm processors or something (which is highly unlikely in fairness), and that your pockets are deep enough, OS X plus good hardware is probably a more stable and productive solution.

Hope this doesn't confuse too much,
Gadget

AlmightyCushion

Dual boot windows 7 with which ever version of linux you like the look of and see how it works for you. This way you can find out if linux will work for you or if you like it. Then before the Win7 RC runs out, make the decision.

Blowfish

Inspector Gadget wrote: »

(Before the Linux brigade settle their backsides into the saddles of their high horses and begin their charge, I am not suggesting Linux is either unstable or slow. I'm talking about Wine and their ilk. It stands to reason that a program running in an emulated environment will suffer a performance overhead, and that the odds of the emulated system being less buggy than an actual copy of Windows, in all fairness, is unlikely.

Well since Wine isn't an emulator, the overhead isn't actually there. In fact for the heck of it I tested this by coding a few OpenGL apps for Windows, then testing them under Wine. They were actually able to run at a higher frame rate under Wine than they could natively under Windows.

Saying that, if Photoshop is your 'killer app', then the point may be moot in any case. CS works perfectly, CS2 works but has some slight bugs and CS3/4 don't really work at all.

MunsterCycling

Photoshop runs fine under Wine, have it installed on Ubuntu 9.04 and works flawlessly.

Erper

Inspector Gadget wrote: »

If Photoshop and similar apps are your game, then your choices are Windows or OS X, period. Wine/Crossover/all the other things people use to get Windows apps running under Linux are a waste of time, especially for apps you'll be using as your bread and butter, as it'll be slow and more prone to crashes.

(Before the Linux brigade settle their backsides into the saddles of their high horses and begin their charge, I am not suggesting Linux is either unstable or slow. I'm talking about Wine and their ilk. It stands to reason that a program running in an emulated environment will suffer a performance overhead, and that the odds of the emulated system being less buggy than an actual copy of Windows, in all fairness, is unlikely. Having said that, X-windows is still not as snappy as other systems, despite AIGLX/Compiz/etc.)

Really, the remaining factors are cost, familiarity, and Adobe's love-hate relationship with Apple.

Firstly, a high-performance PC is typically less than a high-performance Mac (though the margins are tightish these days, and if you want an eight-core monster workstation, it's easier to buy Apple). Also, you can custom build a PC should you so wish.

If you're familiar with Windows for your workflow, then the difference between using the Ctrl key and the Cmd key for keyboard shortcuts is likely to infuriate you for quite a while. If you can live with that, check out what some cool stuff like Automator can do to help take the drudgery out some everyday tasks.

Finally, there's a philosophical difference between Apple and Microsoft when it comes to API support in their OSes, which has caused no end of problems for Apple users. Basically, Microsoft typically favours the "kitchen sink" approach, in an attempt to maximize the number of apps that will work on a given version of Windows, whereas Apple and Adobe have been at loggerheads from time to time over support for various programming APIs, meaning that some versions of OSX support some versions of Photoshop etc. on some platforms, and not on others. It's messy, and if you're interested, this article covers the important bits.

My 2c is that on many levels the safest bet is Windows. How and ever, assuming Apple and Adobe don't have any more fisticuffs, and Apple don't announce they're jumping to Arm processors or something (which is highly unlikely in fairness), and that your pockets are deep enough, OS X plus good hardware is probably a more stable and productive solution.

Hope this doesn't confuse too much,
Gadget

than why dont u tell him to use win2000 and peace...
i mean... everyone have their opinion and wishes...
my wish is to have one of apple's pc's but they r way much more expensive, even if u wanna change some parts...

If i were you, and doin some programs that require more power i would go for win7...
why?
because it got everythin what any win had...
but if u wanna use ur laptop for ordinary purpose than put some of linux systems and enjoy...
3weeks ago i had my doubts will i stay on vista or move to openSUSE 11.x...
reason why i stayed on vista is because i can play games...
otherwise i would defintely go for SUSE...
and why...
because SUSE is a OS which really needs to be for real user...
on linux u can install programs, and some older games..
but linux is virus free....

Inspector Gadget

Despite "Wine Is Not an Emulator" and all that jazz, in many of the ways that matter, it is. It's not a machine emulator, granted, but it is emulating an environment in which a Windows app can run by re-implementing Windows APIs, DLLs, and whatnot, so what would you call that? Seeing as it's not actually Windows but it's pretending to be Windows, or as the dictionary I looked at suggests for "emulate" put it, it does seem to "reproduce the function or action of (a different computer or software system)", doesn't it?

It's not an emulator in the traditional sense, no. But the "compatability layer" the Wine folks speak of sounds suspiciously like one in disguise.

Pygmalion

Inspector Gadget wrote: »

Despite "Wine Is Not an Emulator" and all that jazz, in many of the ways that matter, it is. It's not a machine emulator, granted, but it is emulating an environment in which a Windows app can run by re-implementing Windows APIs, DLLs, and whatnot, so what would you call that? Seeing as it's not actually Windows but it's pretending to be Windows, or as the dictionary I looked at suggests for "emulate" put it, it does seem to "reproduce the function or action of (a different computer or software system)", doesn't it?

It's not an emulator in the traditional sense, no. But the "compatability layer" the Wine folks speak of sounds suspiciously like one in disguise.

He* wasn't saying whether or not it fits the dictionary definition of an emulator though, he was saying that the way it's implemented doesn't necessarily mean any performance overhead, which is correct.
You seem to have responded to "It's not necessarily slower than native Windows system calls, and in some cases can be faster" with "Look at what I found in a dictionary".

*I assume you were responding to Blowfish, as he was the only one who responded that Wine isn't actually an emulator.

Inspector Gadget

Pygmalion wrote: »

He* wasn't saying whether or not it fits the dictionary definition of an emulator though, he was saying that the way it's implemented doesn't necessarily mean any performance overhead, which is correct.
You seem to have responded to "It's not necessarily slower than native Windows system calls, and in some cases can be faster" with "Look at what I found in a dictionary".

*I assume you were responding to Blowfish, as he was the only one who responded that Wine isn't actually an emulator.

Actually, I responded to "Well since Wine isn't an emulator" with an argument that can probably be summed up as "well, that's a matter of degree, I think". And I don't aim to find life's answers in a dictionary, but seeing as the definition seemed both concise and accurate, I decided that it was a reasonable source to employ.

Getting to the direction you're going in, what I'm wondering is if, on average, the combination of any one OS (OS 'A') plus a "compatibility layer" that's pretending to be another OS (OS 'B') can reasonably expect to leaner and faster than just OS 'B' running natively, assuming both implementations are complete enough to run the required apps reliably. If the answer is "yes", then Microsoft (in this case) need to break out their chequebooks and HR guys pronto. It does seem more likely, however, in general, that the answer is going to be "no" more often than it'll be a "yes". This is probably especially true of something like Photoshop that has a tendency to eat RAM and disk space for breakfast if you're doing anything complex.